There's no need to be smug. You're interacting with people from all over the world and all walks of life, so not everyone is going to be "on your level"

Anyway, I brought up Godel's Incompleteness Theorems because they apply to provability in formal systems which are more rigorous than informal systems, and informal, intuitive "systems" are being discussed in this thread. If we have open holes in our most rigorous systems then the same can be said for informal systems and so we must be ready to think critically about what we come across in different ideals and philosophies. And it was a point made in an attempt to encourage critical thought, as you were also trying to do.

Douglas R Hofstadter does well to extend the use of the theorems with respect to isomorphisms, allowing it to apply to formal systems that are not mathematically based, such as symbolic logic. This can be read in Godel, Escher, Bach, which I am assuming you've heard of and/or read.

One love

Interesting discussion going on here. Glad to see a genuine dialogue going on. I'm not sure about anyone else, but I'm not looking for a god. I'm not looking for a higher being, or some "other/big other" to seek validation from.

I think in many ways, my seeking of so many different books is to help myself to steer away from the call of the void. My desires to simply not exist, and to know some underlying truth about my existence [which is ultimately impossible] are crippling some days. The comedy of it all is not totally lost on me.

Don't get me wrong. I appreciate the skepticism of my (or anyone else for that matter) seeking these things to "protect" or "shelter" from dangerous thought traps. Cults/religions are terrifying to me if I'm being honest. The blind adherence to a "big other" denies self worth to me. What value is there to being in a "God's" game of Sims?

I think what is most important to me is the necessity to find/give myself reason to not question the value of my existence and simply enjoy the ride for what it is. The reading material may be unnecessary to my personal journey, but I don't think it hurts me either. The more I think I understand, the more I realize just how many others have tried to explain the same fascination of the self that I have.

By coincidence (?) I came across this quote just before reading your message in a YouTube video that deals with a topic relevant to the discussion. https://youtu.be/S0mO1WgVvig "Buddhism and Magic"

Psychedelics open up a headspace where the new agey terms of spirits, auras, magic and conjurations seem to make sense. Lots of it is still an illusion. It's a fine line between believing too much and believing too little, but I believe the mastery lies in the ability to operate in worlds of illusions and discern what ideas have actual value and application.

Learning meditation has been very helpful in shifting perspectives and not to get sucked in to the first extraordinary idea that you come across.

Welcome to Nexus, sweys!

Or your in too deep and explaining the nuances of buddhism is something you don't have time for or the other person doesn't care.

Buddhism is a religion as such it attracts spiritual practitioners and laypeople. My grandparents would not understand the points you made about Buddhism. What they do understand is that Buddha was beyond Gods and that to obtain a better life in the next rebirth they have to live in a certain way.

As for spiritual books...

Not sure if this counts but I like the Dune series when thinking about the future and the impact our actions have on it.

Additionally, Analytical Buddhism: The Two-tiered Illusion of Self was a good read if your interested in Buddhism.

I mean that, to me, the main takeaways from this books reside in the information from the channelled source, not the additional information that was added to it, which is what you are seemengly criticising.

Sure, there is infinite ways to understand what Ra could or could not be, I dont think that is whats important.



Well, this again might just be my personal opinion, but I find it to illustrate the same teaching that those of Buddhism, Taoism and what not but with much more depth and color.



They dont present themselves a any sort of higher being, they present themselves as a part of all that is, as a part of you and me, whith a clear intention of sharing a message, I dont see any sort of hierarchy in their speech.

They make really clear that they come to share their understanding/opinions, not to impose them upon anyone.


If anything, I find their message to be much like yours.

I mean, in a sense I want everyone to take away as much as I did from this source, which is probably not a fair thing to expect.

@VoidMatrix

Indeed, I am still on a 'level'. But the higher the level I am on, the more levels I still have to go through to come back to 'level zero', thus the more 'work' I still have to do to discard them. Thank you for noticing.

I don't think there is anything in what I've written to be satisfied about for myself. On the contrary, my writings are generally borne of frustrations (which indicates some 'level' I guess). I do not claim to have any truths here. All I'm trying to do is to demonstrate falsehoods.

I can understand that my stuff comes across as arrogant. I could fluff it up a bit, but then I would lose some authenticity in the process. Better to be honest and arrogant than to be insincere and humble in my opinion. My arrogance does not lead me to believe that I'm right though. I love be wrong, this is how I learn. So please, I invite you, prove me wrong. In any case, my apologies if I have offended you here, this was not my intention, but perhaps it was essential to descend to the 'next level'

Unfortunately, my frustration remains. In the following, I will double down on my remark of irrelevance. So probably more arrogance coming, but it might give you some ammo to shoot me (or yourself) down.

Here we go:

Hofstadter himself says in his book 'Gödel, Escher, Bach' on p.25 (in my edition):



Also, he refers to Gödel's paper (1931) on the same page, where Gödel says:



As Hofstadter himself points out, Gödel's work is essentially:


Surely, many have used this jewel of an idea since its inception to expand upon morelaborate philosophical and mystical ideas and concepts. But none of them tend to agree with another on several points to the degree that the pure underpinnings of Gödel's achievement largely become obfuscated. And if you do not entirely understand the many fault lines that distinguishes these interpretations (which I do not claim I do), it becomes really difficult to know what is what. Also, although Gödel has actually 'proven' his point within a specific realm of mathematical reasoning, these further elaborations do not necessarily have this quality.

The confusion of this already becomes apparent in the orginal Epimenides paradox from which Gödel's theorems are derived. Let's see. In Hofstadter's book, it is phrased like this:



Hence, the self-referential paradox arises when you ask whether Epimenides speaks the truth.
But there is a rather obvious mistake involved here that many philosophers nevertheless have overlooked:



Quite simply here, the paradox dissolves. This goes to show that whenever we leave the realm of precise mathematical reasoning, it is very easy to apply the paradox incorrectly.

Consequently, concerning Gödel:



Gödel was aware of this himself and was very cautious in applying his own work to 'bigger' metaphysical questions, which is described for example in this bit in relation to mathematical Platonism:



Moreover:



From the above, I conclude that it is thus not because his theorems sows doubt upon well-established systems of mathematics, reason and logic, that it automatically implies that anything beyond these systems of reason suddenly CAN be critically analysed or validated based upon such doubt. Although doubt can open up new avenues for attempted reasoning, it does not by itself lead to new systems of critical reasoning.

Since, in their pure form, his theorems are not exactly applicable to what is discussed here, I am rather inclined to think that ANY elaboration or application of his theorems in terms of the supernatural or 'higher' beings, be it god, ra, angels, ghosts, etc. will lead us nowhere.

Furthermore, and this is essential, I think the very reason to invoke 'whatever entity' is exactly to prohibit such critical analysis! What truths can we derive (formal or informal) when a diety is invoked?

But, taking this information from the above about multiple interpretations (which I am not at all familiar with) into account, it might be of value to refer to some specific interpretation(s) you intend to apply, although I very much doubt it is even possible.

You've mentioned symbolic logic as an example. I've studied symbolic/formal logic a bit a long time ago, so forgive me if I'm a bit off here, but the way I remember it is that symbolic logic is based on the assumption that the validity of deductive reasoning concerns form, not content. So in this sense, indeed, it would be applicable to any discussion of language, whether the content is mathematical, religious, political, or sex drugs and rock & roll.

But although the content is deemed irrelevant in this system, the objective remains to establish criteria for consistency and validity. In this regard, Wolfram for example defines symbolic logic as:



It's been a while since I've read Hofstadter's Gödel, Escher, Bach (great book btw, good source). I've skimmed through my notes and reread some passages but I can't find anything that opposes my statement of irrelevance or help me to understand your point. If possible, can you refer to a certain passage or clarify how Gödel can be applied here in the eyes of Hofstadter?

I feel caution is required here so we do not end up in some line of questioning similar to the medieval scholars who asked themselves the following question (which I think you are familiar with): "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?" Please, let us try to avoid to fall into a 'Strange Loop'. But otherwise, why not. En garde!!

@Icyseeker



For you (and/or your parents) I have the following:



Thus, is the notion of 'reincarnation' not merely a concept the mind utilizes to protect itself from the anguish of its own perceived demise?

@Koduckushi



I fully agree with the first statement, but not with the second. The crippling nature of questioning is indeed rough (tears, remember). In my opinion, the 'goal' is not to 'enjoy' your existence but to understand it. So the crippling nature of questioning doesn't imply you shouldn't do it because it is what allows you to eventually break free from it, or rather understand it for what it is. To understand the illusion, you really have to question it, otherwise you can never understand it.





However, nobody is telling you you 'have' to do it, though. If not, fine. Most people never understand it. Most people never even think to question it. Then the illusion always persists, until they die, possibly even happily. For them, psychedelics seems irrelevant.
For them, it is the blue pill, not the red one.

But for some, the questioning is inevitable. They can't help themselves (myself included).
Once they feel 'the splinter in their mind', there is no way out. Then I think it's better to go all the way because for them, there is no other way except anxiety and depression (possibly coated with attempted feel-good narratives, or some cocktail of medications) till the day they die.

The red pill is not the fun pill apparently. Tears are a requirement.

So I would say, enjoy the crippling. Really go into the crippling nature of your questioning. Do not let it scare you. It does not mean you are on the wrong track...




Difficult indeed, but not impossible, and definitely beautiful!

---

Perhaps, it might be that you have a bit of a problem here because you already recognize the crippling nature of your questioning, right? So you've already taken the red pill. But now you want to go back to the blue pill and simply enjoy life? Sorry man, I don't think that is possible...

Either you go through with the crippling questioning, or you can try to hide it and deceive yourself into thinking in terms of some narrative that hopefully absolves you from the consequences of the red pill (or, again, persistent medication). But it won't work. Look deep down, how do you feel? If there is anguish, go back to questioning. Don't hide. You are not done yet...

If there is a splinter, you need to get it out (or rather, push it through). You can't just put a band-aid on it. The infection will continue to fester below it. An additional problem then is: the more band-aids you put on top of it, the more you have to rip off again before you get to the real problem.

I specifically say this here because you say that what is important to you is "the necessity to give yourself a reason not to question". If you would be simply enjoying life, there would be no such feeling of 'necessity' and you would not think of it as 'important'.

Moreover, it is the 'necessity for a reason' that you think of as important, not even the reason itself. You cannot 'try' to simply enjoy life. You enjoy it or you don't. This shows you there is a band-aid or that your mind is looking for one. I think these words betray your deeper feelings. There is no real need for you to simply enjoy life. It is OK if you don't. You first need to accept this before you can continue.

If you for example think that you NEED to enjoy life while you don't, you will feel miserable just because of this discrepancy. ( This is exactly why the whole self-help pursuit-of-happiness crap actually works counterproductive. If you 'pursue' happiness, you cannot achieve it. People are even 'pursuing' enlightenment. Utterly, utterly absurd. They must feel miserable. They should meditate less and read more about Buddhism... )

Be cautious, because if you are in this mindset, you can be more easily influenced by some narrative or drug that makes you 'simply enjoy life' in the short term.

I might be wrong though, I'm taking your words literally...

But if I'm right, try to find out what exactly is crippling. Question it. To know truth about your existence is not impossible but the difficulty is to find the right questions, or rather to avoid the wrong questions.

It has more to do with questioning the questions you pose yourself and realizing why they are inherently limited. An example as a teaser: "What is the meaning of life?". Do not think about the right answer to that question, but think about why the question in itself makes little sense... ('42' then becomes a perfect answer.)

If you realize why, it liberates you from that question, and you avoid that it becomes crippeling because you cannot find an answer. Discarding a question might be more useful that providing an answer to that question.

But this does not mean you shouldn't question life and its meaning altogether anymore. Simply understanding that 'words' are inventions of the human mind and only exist in the human mind already helps a lot in constraining your anticipation for answers. They are symbols, tools that primarily help humans exchange information. To pose 'metaphysical' questions about yourself in terms of such limited tools may be pointless to a certain degree. It is as if one is trying to understand yourself or grasp the entire universe by means of a hammer.

Of course, not all questions are of this nature. Please, do not ponder questions like: "Where is my wallet?" in this fashion.


Might be helpful:

@Tomtegubbe

I fully agree.
Although it might be that, in the end, there is in fact nothing to be found 'within' psychedelics.

I'm not there yet. In my experience psychedelics help me to realize 'other' illusions I have acquired. As long as psychedelics help me to do that, I will follow them.

Afterwards, I think I'm gonna have to discard them altogether, otherwise they become another thing to cling to. I think they are (extremely interesting) tools, but not objects of identification.


Thank you for the welcome, btw!

Would the establishment of a falsehood not be in it's own class of truth? "X is false" is a positivist statement, that if it's the case would be considered "true."

I'm not sure that sincerity/authenticity and humility are mutually exclusive and your position may be a reason you're still not understanding me. You seem to be reading too much into what I've said (and not why I said it).

I'm in no way trying to say that there is a way and manner in which the actual theorems can be applied to informal systems, but rather that certain implications that the theorems generated can be applied to informal systems.

The theorems are focused on the limits of provability and decidability of formal systems (the debate about applications to formal systems outside of math doesn't actually matter here), which we use to find "truths" about propositions in a system. So, keeping with math, in some instances, we can see whether a conlcusion drawn with and/or about math has a preferred relative degree of proof and decidability. This can be extended to instances of math in the real world since I don't recall the theorems being relagated to pure math. To rephrase my point then: if, within our most rigorous systems, we can see some limits to provability and decidability, then by extension, a system that is less rigorous, consistent, formal, etc, will have a greater scope and degree of limits of provability and decidability of its own propositions. In other words, propositions or "truths" out of religion, mysticisim, etc, have a great deal more in the way of limits in provability and decidability of statements born out of those systems.

To clarify, I also haven't said anything about Godels theorems providing support for God or mysticism. If anything, it just lends to the mecurial nature of the "truth" of statements that are derived from systems concerning those matters.

I'm prepared to agree to disagree.

With regard to symbolic logic, it is a broad class of logics predicated on the reduction and symbolization of statements and propositions and their interactions concerning both deductive and inductive modes of reasoning. Focus on validity is the focus on form and is kind of one of the first corner stones in understanding formal logics and further orders of propositional and predicate logics. However, it is also concerned with soundness, cogency, consistency, etc, so at some point content becomes a consideration.

And you said it. I love that book. Touched me deeply. I can't recall specifically and haven't had a chance to try and find it in the book, but from what I recall, Hofstadter uses the idea of isomorphisms and the utility of his propositional calculus with use of typographical number theory to show how isomorphisms of certain degrees can be created through use of mathematical systems to be able to be mapped onto a logical system. One of the main prerequisites is that both systems have to be formal however.

One love

Your point is understood. I guess from a more enlightened position one would be able to see through the entire process of life.

Tough because so much of what Buddha has taught has been lost to time. I think it's a pretty big ask to say that Buddha didn't teach reincarnation. I am reading the connected discourses of the Buddha and in one part Buddha acknowledges the passing of an individual and what realm he was reborn in. Also there is much mention of God's and devils as well in the book.

I understand Buddhism has evolved well past Buddha. However, I prefer to just go off what little I can find of the Buddha's speech. So I don't find the quote that you listed of much help.

Also I doubt any argument given to my grandparents will shift their thinking about Buddhism.

Edit: been doing some more reading depending on what sect you follow reincarnation is taught or not taught.

PS:sorry for derailing thread.

This just got slippery.

I'll humbly bow out after this post. This thread has derailed a bit and I apologize to the OP.

I think this [reincarnation in Buddhism] is going to depend on a few factors, such as Buddhist sect and interpretation of translations (which something is always missing).

Bear in mind, Buddha was initially Hindu, so it's precarious to say that he did not think of or consider reincarnation as something possible (he also acknowledges the gods after all).

Now, sweys, you quoted the Buddha in regards to not believing something just because you've read it. However, I've watched you quote on one side of a topic and then summarize as if it's your own position, and neglecting consideration of other views,since a lot of what has been discussed here is open ended. The Buddha has been long dead, and so is a bit impossible to incontrovertibly prove that he didn't promote reincarnation. You read something and ran with it. I don't know what you think, but only what you've read and hold your conviction in.

I would like to give a little advice: you're new here. Take the time to get to know people before you start tearing down what others feel and think. Ask questions. Explore their ideas with them. Otherwise you're going to get a lot less interaction.

One love