The disposability of self

[Amorphos]

The disposability of self

Unless we are infinite beings [like e.g. god] then the self is ultimately disposable, it will come to an end. For atheists this is at death, for Buddhists it is when we reach nirvana, and on another level nature treats all its subjects as if they are disposable. Everything in the universe appears to be built according to a simply rule of continuance by recycling and disposability, so it seams like a general priciple, …but what is that principle? …and what does it mean ethically?

[Monarchist]

God protects the Self, while somehow putting it into His Being, in my opinion. There is no real answer to such a broad, Cosmic question as this to limited, finite beings such as we. How can anyone possibly formulate an explanation of things we've never experienced, and won't experience until we are untied from these bodies of ours? I say "wait until you die"; then, you'll find out!

[Amorphos]

monarchist
Sure, but it means something ethically surely, as it is used across the universe and in nature, then for the religious it is gods plan, hence we can ask what the principle is and how it relates to our lives.

[Arch-hereticK]

God protects the Self, while somehow putting it into His Being, in my opinion. There is no real answer to such a broad, Cosmic question as this to limited, finite beings such as we. How can anyone possibly formulate an explanation of things we've never experienced, and won't experience until we are untied from these bodies of ours? I say "wait until you die"; then, you'll find out!

You've formulated explanations of things you've never experienced (the source of the universe, that source's rough moral code, the after-life) how is this different?

[Amorphos]

good point.

[Monarchist]

You've formulated explanations of things you've never experienced (the source of the universe, that source's rough moral code, the after-life) how is this different?

I believe that which I have experienced. You don't know me, so you'll just have to take me at my word.

[Arch-hereticK]

I believe that which I have experienced. You don't know me, so you'll just have to take me at my word.

Fair enough.

But according to my experience your claims of what you've experienced are impossible (equal to UFO abductees, psychics, telepaths, fortune-tellers, zombies, vampires, faieries, levitation etc.) in my eyes.

It's in contradiction with Occam's Razor.

If you've been convinced of a lie, how can you know?

[Monarchist]

Fair enough.

But according to my experience your claims of what you've experienced are impossible (equal to UFO abductees, psychics, telepaths, fortune-tellers, zombies, vampires, faieries, levitation etc.) in my eyes.

It's in contradiction with Occam's Razor.

If you've been convinced of a lie, how can you know?

Occam's Razor is silly, in my opinion. The Universe is infinitely complex on many, many levels. He made that little quip back in the 1300's for goodness sake, when all seemed quite simple.

[Helm]

We're infinite enough it's just we will spend most of that infinity scattered around the place as atoms. Though I suppose you will be referring to the mind but it's worth knowing that you can never experience the state non-being so it's not something that can happen to you personally, so contemplating it is an irrelevance.

[Amorphos]

Anything without empirical justification is a lie

Although empiricism is also limited, however I still agree with your point in the main. There are some valid experiences on the mental plain that cannot be explained empirically.

it's worth knowing that you can never experience the state non-being

Because it is that with which one experiences.

[Arch-hereticK]

Although empiricism is also limited, however I still agree with your point in the main. There are some valid experiences on the mental plain that cannot be explained empirically.

That's a good point.
But it's difficult to empirically justify right now, neorology at the moment can explain many things now that were unknowable a few years ago, I'm sure it's gonna continue like that until everything is knowable.

[Amorphos]

I cant see everything being knowable, we reach a point where things are too subtle or subjective for absolute definition.

[Denny Crane!]

The self is the aggregate of the skhandas as discussed in another thread. Is there any reason to assume that 'I' is anything more than an aggregate of processes?

Seems like an unnecessary leap without further evidence.

[Amorphos]

As I said on the other thread, I don’t believe the self is entirely an aggregate of the senses, they seam somewhat external to our inner cores. …and they are one with the primary oneness.

The evidence is in understanding origins and fundamentals, contemplate ‘the oneness’, it seams a simple term, but with such massive meaning of the all, all that we are as one! Reality is surely an oneness; hence the fundamental nature of our being is reality. In a Buddhist [traditional] context that’s quite incredible.

The disposability of self derives from this, if we think of Aristotle’s eternals in metaphysics, then the comparative of physics/material then our eternal essence gives us freedom and recyclability/renewal ~ if so desired.

On the other hand, nature seams harsh by it. However if there is this meaning, then it isn’t as bad as it seams, there is a wisdom to it!

i am more looking at an across the religious platforms here, rather than just buddhist perspective. trying to find meaning to our bleak existence etc etc

[Denny Crane!]

The evidence is in understanding origins and fundamentals, contemplate ‘the oneness’, it seams a simple term, but with such massive meaning of the all, all that we are as one! Reality is surely an oneness; hence the fundamental nature of our being is reality. In a Buddhist [traditional] context that’s quite incredible.

The disposability of self derives from this, if we think of Aristotle’s eternals in metaphysics, then the comparative of physics/material then our eternal essence gives us freedom and recyclability/renewal ~ if so desired.

On the other hand, nature seams harsh by it. However if there is this meaning, then it isn’t as bad as it seams, there is a wisdom to it!

i am more looking at an across the religious platforms here, rather than just buddhist perspective. trying to find meaning to our bleak existence etc etc

I'm confused can you explain the buddhist context? I'm not sure I grasp the evidence of origins.

[Demokritos]

The self is the aggregate of the skhandas as discussed in another thread. Is there any reason to assume that 'I' is anything more than an aggregate of processes?

Well, I don't know what thread or philosophy you're referring to, but the "self" and the "I" do not necessarily mean the same thing. The former might be a broader concept than the latter. The content of our consciousness - thoughts, emotions, memories, beliefs etc - is "that which we percieve". That's one thing. This is always in motion, or can be described as some sort of motion or other. So it should consist of one type of matter or energy or other. That which percieves all this motion, however - the perciever, which we refer to when we say "I" - is a different thing. The former seems a multitude but the latter singular. It would make sense if the "I" is able to percieve all this motion or change only because it is, at its most fundamental level, motionless or unchanging itself. The "I" is the ultimate source of our identity. Other than that, it's beyond qualification. It just percieves. The "self", however, might be understood as including our personality - memories, beliefs, etc. In other words, a part of the percieved along with the perciever.

In this way, part of the self might be disposable, part of it indisposable.

[Dead Sun]

I might not have understood, but i'm presuming that when we are talking about the "I" we are discussing something very similar to the mind or the soul...

[Helm]

Your existence has as much meaning as you want to give it at the end of the day, whether it's finite or infinite is of no consequence either way.

[Dead Sun]

The discussion is to see whether we can reveal a lighter truth to how much we actually have, not what our first perceptions are of it. But it is true what you say, our arguments will be biased towards our intial experiences and uprbringing. Our sense of realism, experience and "self" will take the course of evolution. It will either be made greater or worsened depending on environment and usefulness.

[NewUser]

The mental thought processing is synonymous to our brain. Without our brain we wouldn't 'exist' in a sense, since we do not know that we exist, therefor we do not exist. It is the combination of things in existence that forms the brain, so yes we are disposable because things in our universe tend to rearrange themselves. Basically 'we' stop existing when our brain is damaged extensively or we die. There is no "spirit", that is just wishful thinking. Now we go to the question of why existence exists. Everything happens for a reason (maybe this is inside of existence because there is no reason for existence to exist), such as why I'm alive right now, why computers exist, why our universe exists. What prompted existence to exist?