The impossible is impossible

[Guest EmptyVase]

@Johnny5 Not a strange-loop?

[Tim R]

1 hour ago, EmptyVase said:

@Johnny5 Not a strange-loop?

I thought about wether this is a strange loop or not... I think it's safe to say that it isn't. 

To say that the impossible can't exist and the only thing that exists is the possible is nothing particularly loopy.

It would get loopy if you'd confuse the idea of "everything is possible" with "everything is possible including the impossible". But since the impossible doesn't exist it doesn't loop back to the realm of "the possible"

You see?

[peachboy]

I must be dumb. I'm not getting this at all.

It seems to me that what you're saying is: that which is impossible, is impossible.

Surely that's no different from saying: 4 = 4....?

Where's the great revelation? (unless this is semantic humor that is going over my head.) 

[Guest EmptyVase]

21 minutes ago, Tim R said:

It would get loopy if you'd confuse the idea of "everything is possible" with "everything is possible including the impossible".

I think that's what I did.

This sparks up the following question in me: where do we draw the line between contemplation and mental masturbation? Because I could see myself discussing this topic for hours on end, without really coming to a "final conclusion" in the realm of language.

My best guess is that the explicit (this discussion; words) points to the implicit (understanding; that which can't be fully explicated). If one is stuck at the explicit stage and can't quite get to the implicit, the contemplation is inefficient and turns into mental diarrhea.

Then again, you never know when a seed gets planted through words.

[Tim R]

15 minutes ago, peachboy said:

Surely that's no different from saying: 4 = 4....?

Where's the great revelation? 

Yes, it's a very tautological say to thing that the impossible is impossible.

Read very carefully and take it literally:

The great revelation is: nothing in the universe which is, is something impossible, otherwise it wouldn't be, right? Right.

Which means: everything in the universe that is, is something possible, otherwise it would also not be, right? Right.

So, this means that the impossible doesn't exist, because it can't exist. By definition. It's impossible, how could it then exist. It couldn't.

That's the revelation. Nothing in the universe could ever be something impossible.

 

If you don't get it at this point, read it over and over and over till it clicks. I won't make another comment to explain.

[Tim R]

1 minute ago, EmptyVase said:

My best guess is that the explicit (this discussion; words) points to the implicit (understanding; that which can't be fully explicated). If one is stuck at the explicit stage and can't quite get to the implicit, the contemplation is inefficient and turns into mental diarrhea.

Yes, one has to be careful not to turn this into a mere word game. But this goes for absolutely everything because all understanding is implicit.

[Johnny5]

2 hours ago, EmptyVase said:

@Johnny5 Not a strange-loop?

You must have missed my recent crusade  

Strange loops are impossible for the same reason why duality/relativity/finiteness is impossible: Bottomless regression.

In other words a strange loop can't actually exist, it can only appear to exist. Same as our shared dream "reality", which is indeed a strange loop, and which is indeed impossible. Everything about the dream is impossible, that's how you know that none of it exists beyond perception. And that's how you know that whatever you perceive is a lie (existentially speaking).

 

36 minutes ago, peachboy said:

I must be dumb. I'm not getting this at all.

It seems to me that what you're saying is: that which is impossible, is impossible.

Surely that's no different from saying: 4 = 4....?

Where's the great revelation? (unless this is semantic humor that is going over my head.) 

Yes it's a kinda obvious and self-evident tautology, just like "truth exists" and "falseness doesn't". Revelations tend to be like that  they hit you with something that's only obvious in hindsight, after it clicks in your mind.

And even then, the full ramifications often haven't really sunk in yet...

 

12 minutes ago, EmptyVase said:

This sparks up the following question in me: where do we draw the line between contemplation and mental masturbation? Because I could see myself discussing this topic for hours on end, without really coming to a "final conclusion" in the realm of language.

Yes, you just answered your own question . 

Basically the line is between correcting wrong-knowing (contemplation), or constructing wrong-knowing (mental masturbation). The latter never reaches a conclusion because you can keep constructing any artifice you wish endlessly. The former reaches a conclusion when the wrong-knowing is corrected (eliminated). Like the proverbial thorn removing a thorn.

 

12 minutes ago, EmptyVase said:

My best guess is that the explicit (this discussion; words) points to the implicit (understanding; that which can't be fully explicated). If one is stuck at the explicit stage and can't quite get to the implicit, the contemplation is inefficient and turns into mental diarrhea.

Then again, you never know when a seed gets planted through words.

Agree, but even so, one has to start somewhere. We always start over our ears in a mountain of mental diarrhea, and the "journey" or "process" is to find a way out. So in a sense it boils down to using the mind against itself.

Edited September 4, 2020 by Johnny5

[Tim R]

4 minutes ago, Johnny5 said:

You must have missed my recent crusade  

Strange loops are impossible for the same reason why duality/relativity/finiteness is impossible: Bottomless regression.

In other words a strange loop can't actually exist, it can only appear to exist. Same as our shared dream "reality", which is indeed a strange loop, and which is indeed impossible. Everything about the dream is impossible, that's how you know that none of it exists beyond perception. And that's how you know that whatever you perceive is a lie (existentially speaking).

 

Yes it's a kinda obvious and self-evident tautology, just like "truth exists" and "falseness doesn't". Revelations tend to be like that  they hit you with something that's only obvious in hindsight, after it clicks in your mind.

And even then, the full ramifications often haven't really sunk in yet...

 

Yes, you just answered your own question . 

Basically the line is between correcting wrong-knowing (contemplation), or constructing wrong-knowing (mental masturbation). The latter never reaches a conclusion because you can keep constructing any artifice you wish endlessly. The former reaches a conclusion when the wrong-knowing is corrected (eliminated). Like the proverbial thorn removing a thorn.

 

Agree, but even so, one has to start somewhere. We always start over our ears in a mountain of mental diarrhea, and the "journey" or "process" is to find a way out. So in a sense it boils down to using the mind against itself.

 

Spot on.

 

5 minutes ago, Johnny5 said:

And even then, the full ramifications often haven't really sunk in yet...

When I realized this yesterday, the ramifications were the mind-bending material which made me roam through the living room for a while...

[Guest EmptyVase]

@Johnny5 You never fail to blow my mind and spark a light, thank you 

[Tim R]

7 minutes ago, Tim R said:

Strange loops are impossible for the same reason why duality/relativity/finiteness is impossible: Bottomless regression.

In other words a strange loop can't actually exist, it can only appear to exist. Same as our shared dream "reality", which is indeed a strange loop, and which is indeed impossible. Everything about the dream is impossible, that's how you know that none of it exists beyond perception. And that's how you know that whatever you perceive is a lie (existentially speaking).

@Johnny5 Could you paste a link or something where this is explained? I'm not sure whether I understand correctly or not.. .

[Johnny5]

55 minutes ago, Tim R said:

When I realized this yesterday, the ramifications were the mind-bending material which made me roam through the living room for a while...

 ? awesome

 

48 minutes ago, EmptyVase said:

@Johnny5 You never fail to blow my mind and spark a light, thank you 

Glad to hear, thank you too.  ? 

 

46 minutes ago, Tim R said:

@Johnny5 Could you paste a link or something where this is explained? I'm not sure whether I understand correctly or not.. .

My crusade was in the "experience is never direct" thread, but it doesn't really explain the relativity thing.

The best explanations that I know of are the buddhist "Emptiness" philosophy, and Jed McKenna's book "Theory of Everything". The buddhist philosophy is dry, boring, long-winded and contemplation-heavy, Jed's books are easy and funny. Also Buddhists generally think their philosophy is the truth, when in my view it's really just a corrective. Another bomb that destroys the universe. But I didn't realize that until after I had read Jed's ToE, chapter Agrippa's Trilemma (that's basically a no-nonsense approach to the same conclusion).

Alan Watts is, among other things, an accessible introduction to emptiness and the interdependent origination of duality.

David Quinn's version of causality is essentially the same thing, although he makes the same mistake as the buddhists: http://www.naturalthinker.net/dquinn/Books/Wisdom/WisdomContents.htm 

Greg Goode has books, articles and references about it if you really want to explore the literature and philosophy: https://greg-goode.com/topic/nonduality/

And of course my personal favorite, Jed, who skips all the extraneous mindgames and gets right down to brass tax: https://www.wisefoolpress.com/toe/

 

Another way of saying bottomless regression, is lack of foundation, or something from nothing. Perhaps the easiest way to get at the impossibility of strange loops (which extends to the impossibility of duality, finiteness, relativity, etc.), is to consider this image that someone else posted recently:

When both hands are dependent upon eachother for their own existence, then it's a chicken/egg problem. That's bottomless regression, a.k.a. lack of foundation, a.k.a. something from nothing. And that's also at the core of buddhist emptiness and dependent origination.

Neither one of those two hands in the picture could ever come into being without the other, which means that neither of them can exist at all.

The key point here is that when you think about it, it's exactly the same with everything else. If you understand why those hands could never exist, then you understand why the universe could never exist.

Hence the term "ground of being". When it becomes clear that being is groundless, and that this is an impossibility, you go looking for the ground, i.e. the foundation, i.e. the truth underlying all of reality without which it would be impossible. And the only possible candidate for that is consciousness.

Edited September 4, 2020 by Johnny5

[Tim R]

3 minutes ago, Johnny5 said:

 ? awesome

 

Glad to hear, thank you too.

 

My crusade was in the "experience is never direct" thread, but it doesn't really explain the relativity thing.

The best explanations that I know of are the buddhist "Emptiness" philosophy, and Jed McKenna's book "Theory of Everything". The buddhist philosophy is dry, boring, long-winded and contemplation-heavy, Jed's books are easy and funny. Also Buddhists generally think their philosophy is the truth, when in my view it's really just a corrective. Another bomb that destroys the universe. But I didn't realize that until after I had read Jed's ToE, chapter Agrippa's Trilemma (that's basically a no-nonsense approach to the same conclusion).

Alan Watts is, among other things, an accessible introduction to emptiness and the interdependent origination of duality.

David Quinn's version of causality is essentially the same thing, although he makes the same mistake as the buddhists: http://www.naturalthinker.net/dquinn/Books/Wisdom/WisdomContents.htm 

Greg Goode has books, articles and references about it if you really want to explore the literature and philosophy: https://greg-goode.com/topic/nonduality/

And of course my personal favorite, Jed, who skips all the extraneous mindgames and gets right down to brass tax: https://www.wisefoolpress.com/toe/

 

Another way of saying bottomless regression, is lack of foundation, or something from nothing. Perhaps the easiest way to get at the impossibility of strange loops (which extends to the impossibility of duality, finiteness, relativity, etc.), is to consider this image that someone else posted recently:

When both hands are dependent upon eachother for their own existence, then it's a chicken/egg problem. That's bottomless regression, a.k.a. lack of foundation, a.k.a. something from nothing. And that's also at the core of buddhist emptiness and dependent origination.

Neither one of those two hands in the picture could ever come into being without the other, which means that neither of them can exist at all.

The key point here is that when you think about it, it's exactly the same with everything else. If you understand why those hands could never exist, then you understand why the universe could never exist.

Hence the term "ground of being". When it becomes clear that being is groundless, and that this is an impossibility, you go looking for the ground, i.e. the foundation, i.e. the truth underlying all of reality without which it would be impossible. And the only possible candidate for that is consciousness.

@Johnny5 Thanks mate. I'll make sure to check out Jed McKenna, don't know him yet.