You are correct. I got twisted around, what I really meant to posit was that complete ego death of a transcendental nature would still include the arrow of time as a constant, defined, and objective distinction. Yes or no?
I can’t say with any confidence if those factors would remain in such a state. I would doubt it, but I’m just guessing.
I can tell you that I’ve experienced altered states in which severe time dialation and dissilution of the ego have happened together.
What in the world does “spiritual progress” have to do with the concept of self-ownership?
Little to nothing.
If you’re trying to disprove the Law of Identity here, I’ll have you know that you’ve committed a performative contradiction. By saying anything at all, you’re presuming the Law of Identity.
And what do you mean by “limitation”? How is the Law of Identity a limitation to anything?
Then why bring up “spiritual progress”?
Autolykos,
Yep, contradiction. take a look at the sig.
I brought up spiritual progress because malachi had asked me if I thought the Five aggregates were useful. My answer was in the short term, yes, but are probably an impediment to my spiritual progress, so in the long term, no.
I would say “everything.” who is responsible for your spiritual progress, if you do not own yourself?
How do you mean to make spiritual progress without the five aggregates? Hypothetically, I mean. What is there to progress from? Or to?
Ask someone who is no longer mired in Dukkha! It certainly ain’t me! The progress is from ignorance to wisdom.
Ok I think we have established that you are not a nihilist, but you are religious. You adopt the goal of enlightenment as your ultimate standard.
I have. So by admitting to committing a performative contradiction, you (and Stirner) have effectively conceded the debate.
Fair enough.
I’d say “radical agnostic”.
“I know one thing, that I know nothing” - Socrates
If one considers “enlightenment” as “ultimate understanding”, than Sophia is my desired end, hopefully one that will end desire completely.
I’d like to think that I’ve demonstrated the limitations of language. I cannot “explain” a concept to you that is contradicted by the act of explanation. That is a limit of ourselves, rather than proving or disproving the validity of (un)said concept.
How do you know it’s a limitation? How can you prove it’s a limitation? What do you mean by “validity”?
I don’t understand what you are asking. That I prove language does not completely convey concepts? That would just be telepathy.
Validity as in “trueness” or “rightness”
But logical negation of a logical system is a concept that is faithfully conveyed by language, we have spent the entire day discussing it. This is not a failure of language but a failure of nihilism.
read about kurt godel and his incompleteness theorems.
I just read all your references. I dont think anything in any of them negates the statement I made earlier, or even casts doubt on it. In fact, wu wei is something I would describe as harmony between the ego and the I.
Presumably, dead people have no desires. So it’s not like there’s nothing you could do to achieve your desired end. Just saying. But don’t try to use logic to imply anything from what I just said, as A may not be A, dead people may not be dead, and be may not be be, after all.
Malachi I’ve been busy I’ll respond soon.
But this thread has turned very Clintonian… if you all catch my drift