Some thoughts on the logic of 'Heaven would be boring' arguments

"New Age-speak"? Non-duality, the illusion of separation, etc., - whatever words we use - is not new. It is fundamental to some of the most ancient philosophies. A quick look at Wikipedia will confirm that:



I think it is a little arrogant to dismiss something as merely "New Age-speak" because you find it impossible to understand. That suggests that you consider anything you can't understand as not worthy of consideration.

I am now remembering why my prolonged absence was probably a good idea.

I didn't intend to come across as arrogant. I'm an electronics engineer by profession with a lot of respect for science and logic, and tend to read things literally. Combined with a deep appreciation for spiritual matters and the arts. But when I encounter phrases like "there is no separation" I tend to logically look at the implications of those words. I notice that you haven't engaged with my perhaps erroneous reasoning. Perhaps I missed something basic here? I might also observe that the ancientness of certain philosophies is no logical indication of their correctness, in fact maybe the reverse.

I didn't intend to come across as arrogant. I'm an electronics engineer by profession with a lot of respect for science and logic, and tend to read things literally. Combined with a deep appreciation for spiritual matters and the arts. But when I encounter phrases like "there is no separation" I tend to logically look at the implications of those words. I notice that you haven't engaged with my perhaps erroneous reasoning. Perhaps I missed something basic here? I might also observe that the ancientness of certain philosophies is no logical indication of their correctness, in fact maybe the reverse.

To my reasoning, the existence of a single, all-encompassing consciousness is the only logical conclusion for how and why we exist at all. If you want the new age term: All That Is. 

Having said that, what manifests from that singular entity must be the seemingly separated and localised consciousness that you and I call “I”. Again, from that perspective, your mind and my mind are separate and may or may not remain so. But that separation is a necessary illusion for the purpose of the greater consciousness being able to know itself. The vast variety of localised and seemingly separate minds must be unimaginable but when I sit and think about that infinite mind I occasionally glimpse what seems to be a truth: that we are all one. I don’t have the words to describe that feeling. It seems to be more of a knowing than an intellectual understanding. It just feels right.

Coming back to the New Age aspect, which is often scoffed at because of its associations with crystal healing and aromatherapy, etc., there is often mention of a greater soul entity of which this current human personality is a part. I’m not talking about All That Is when I say that but what is often called the higher self. So my higher self presumably contains (for want of a better word) all of the reincarnational personalities that I have lived. And this higher self is not separate but experiences everything that I and all my other personalities experience. That higher self is aware of all those experiences but I - this limited and localised personality - am not. Yet we are one. There is no separation, only a necessary limitation to my awareness. 

If I accept that explanation then why would I reject the possibility that the higher self it itself part of a higher entity still? And why not extend that to its logical conclusion which has to be the single source of all consciousness?

Just one more reply for @nbtruthman. 

If I am to engage with you then I need some clue as to what you think. You talk about your logic but don’t describe what that logic tells you other than it apparently tells you to dismiss New Age speak and to conclude that ancient wisdom is probably not worth a damn either. You clearly don’t want to entertain one of the major philosophical doctrines which is materialism (at least we agree on that) yet it seems that you also reject the counter argument from the other major philosophical doctrine which is idealism. I’m not a philosopher in the academic sense but I believe that idealism is a non-dualist position, is it not? 

So I’m at a loss to know what you consider acceptable to your logic. I'm guessing that you are a dualist of some kind but, again, I'm no philosophy scholar so am not able to argue the merits of idealism over dualism. I just take on board what makes sense to me and that seems to fit with idealism. By the way, I spent my working life with computer technology which, I would suggest, is every bit as logical as your electronics engineering.

[Laird]

To put it a little crudely and not quite accurately, my sentiments on this theme can be expressed roughly as follows:

If I were to stick a pin through my hand, and you were to cry out, "Ouch, that hurts - why have I done this to myself?", then I might take the notion of "no separation" seriously. Until then...

The end-point of this notion of "no separation" is the idea that there is, ultimately, only one self; that your self, and mine, are the same: that we have the same identity. So, let's examine that notion. What does it mean, and does it (can it) even make sense?

It obviously doesn't mean that you and I have the same identity as a body, because my body is here in Australia and yours (to take Kam as an example) is over there in New Zealand. The contortions a mind would have to go through to contend let alone believe that those two bodies are (or even could be) one and the same are too gruesome to contemplate.

It also can't mean that our experiences and perceptions are identical, because right now yours (Kam's again) seem to be that this forum is a place you might be better off taking another extended break from, and mine are enjoyment of its recent heightened activity.

For similar reasons, it can't mean either that our thoughts and cognition are identical.

So, we have to strip ourselves (ourself?!) right, right back the very essence of selfhood to even hope to be able to mount a meaningful case that you and I have - no, are - the same self; that we are - at our core - identical ("non-separate").

We are talking then at the level of the bare, unadorned, metaphysical self: that fundament of being which Bernardo Kastrup, for example, describes as "that which experiences".

OK. What, though, would it mean for that which experiences to be experiencing your body, experiences, perceptions, and cognition, whilst simultaneously experiencing my body, experiences, perceptions, and cognition?

Right now, I, Laird, am experiencing the typing-out of my thoughts on a keyboard in Australia. You (taking Kam again as an example) are not experiencing this. You are experiencing something else. But our premise was that that which experiences has the same identity for both of us: and if two apparently-different beings - which are defined by being an experiencer, and hence by their (its) experiences - really have the same identity, then they (it) must have identical experiences. So then, how could it be experiencing something (the typing-out of its thoughts on a keyboard in Australia) whilst simultaneously not experiencing that same thing?

This strikes me as a fatal incoherence with the notion that that which experiences is identical for both of us. It is one which Titus Rivas elaborates on quite clearly on his page Is noetic monism tenable?, and which is complemented by my page The argument against idealism from conflicting perspectives, which Titus kindly references at the bottom of his page.

It seems to me that if we want this notion that we are all truly identical, and non-separate, to make sense, then we have to radically redefine what we mean by the word "self" - and I haven't seen a compelling redefinition.

A better idea along these lines in my view is not that we are all "identical", but that we are all "intimately connected": that whilst we really do have the spiritual capacity to see and experience through one another's eyes, as though we were each other, our core metaphysical selves nevertheless are distinct; that we are a closely-connected collective of mutually-interested selves united by a Divine Self. The empathic connectedness can be taken to a degree which for all intents and purposes removes the separation between us without the incoherence of the notion that we are literally one and the same.

I am now remembering why my prolonged absence was probably a good idea.

I hope that doesn't mean you are about to leave us again. Of course you are free to spend your time and energy as you wish, but a difference of opinion I hope would not be a cause of any sudden decision.

An exchange of views though is surely why you are posting, and I sincerely hope that somewhere in the exchange there is something of significance which might be useful.

Personally, I appreciate your presence and participation here.

[Laird]

I hope that doesn't mean you are about to leave us again. Of course you are free to spend your time and energy as you wish, but a difference of opinion I hope would not be a cause of any sudden decision.

Sentiments shared, Typoz. My last post was from the intellect; yours is from the heart.

Kam, please don't leave us again. Your presence is valued, especially while you're exploring ideas in the vulnerable way that you have been in this thread. Differences of opinion may be felt more keenly given how openly you've expressed yourself, but that vulnerability is also a strength.

I hope that doesn't mean you are about to leave us again. Of course you are free to spend your time and energy as you wish, but a difference of opinion I hope would not be a cause of any sudden decision.

An exchange of views though is surely why you are posting, and I sincerely hope that somewhere in the exchange there is something of significance which might be useful.

Personally, I appreciate your presence and participation here.

It wasn’t so much the difference of opinion as the feeling that my trying to introduce a direction of thinking which is admittedly new to me was somehow not welcome. I don’t yet know what to make of Spira but his talks have caused me to rethink some long-held convictions. A few months ago I would have been agreeing with those who have dismissed his worldview because it likewise disagreed with mine. Now I’m not so sure and I was trying to express that doubt and the reasons for it. Yet that expression was dismissed with comments like “New Age-speak” and “yuck”.

Maybe I’m just being over sensitive but I remember the reason I joined the other founders of this forum because of negative reactions from the Skeptiko establishment to posts which challenged the views we were all seemingly expected to adhere to. I was banned for such a challenge but I won’t hang around in the face of intolerance again. However, to put that in context, I still have the utmost respect for the views of everyone here and this forum remains just about the only place I can come to discuss such subjects without being vilified but I still don’t want to be part of a talking shop where challenging ideas are chased out. Of course it is not that yet but be careful, please.

To put it a little crudely and not quite accurately, my sentiments on this theme can be expressed roughly as follows:

If I were to stick a pin through my hand, and you were to cry out, "Ouch, that hurts - why have I done this to myself?", then I might take the notion of "no separation" seriously. Until then...

The end-point of this notion of "no separation" is the idea that there is, ultimately, only one self; that your self, and mine, are the same: that we have the same identity. So, let's examine that notion. What does it mean, and does it (can it) even make sense?

It obviously doesn't mean that you and I have the same identity as a body, because my body is here in Australia and yours (to take Kam as an example) is over there in New Zealand. The contortions a mind would have to go through to contend let alone believe that those two bodies are (or even could be) one and the same are too gruesome to contemplate.

It also can't mean that our experiences and perceptions are identical, because right now yours (Kam's again) seem to be that this forum is a place you might be better off taking another extended break from, and mine are enjoyment of its recent heightened activity.

For similar reasons, it can't mean either that our thoughts and cognition are identical.

So, we have to strip ourselves (ourself?!) right, right back the very essence of selfhood to even hope to be able to mount a meaningful case that you and I have - no, are - the same self; that we are - at our core - identical ("non-separate").

We are talking then at the level of the bare, unadorned, metaphysical self: that fundament of being which Bernardo Kastrup, for example, describes as "that which experiences".

OK. What, though, would it mean for that which experiences to be experiencing your body, experiences, perceptions, and cognition, whilst simultaneously experiencing my body, experiences, perceptions, and cognition?

Right now, I, Laird, am experiencing the typing-out of my thoughts on a keyboard in Australia. You (taking Kam again as an example) are not experiencing this. You are experiencing something else. But our premise was that that which experiences has the same identity for both of us: and if two apparently-different beings - which are defined by being an experiencer, and hence by their (its) experiences - really have the same identity, then they (it) must have identical experiences. So then, how could it be experiencing something (the typing-out of its thoughts on a keyboard in Australia) whilst simultaneously not experiencing that same thing?

This strikes me as a fatal incoherence with the notion that that which experiences is identical for both of us. It is one which Titus Rivas elaborates on quite clearly on his page Is noetic monism tenable?, and which is complemented by my page The argument against idealism from conflicting perspectives, which Titus kindly references at the bottom of his page.

It seems to me that if we want this notion that we are all truly identical, and non-separate, to make sense, then we have to radically redefine what we mean by the word "self" - and I haven't seen a compelling redefinition.

A better idea along these lines in my view is not that we are all "identical", but that we are all "intimately connected": that whilst we really do have the spiritual capacity to see and experience through one another's eyes, as though we were each other, our core metaphysical selves nevertheless are distinct; that we are a closely-connected collective of mutually-interested selves united by a Divine Self. The empathic connectedness can be taken to a degree which for all intents and purposes removes the separation between us without the incoherence of the notion that we are literally one and the same.

Laird, I will try to answer this later when I’m not stumbling around my iPad virtual keyboard which I still find cumbersome.