Ok. I wanted to ask you something about the last time we were up here. I have been thinking about it. What? That feels good, Joe. --Hmm. About me not being dense? What? Not being dense. What is that? Remember? --What you told me? What do the letters stand for? Determinate, essentially unified, substantial, indivisible, separate. Stuff like that. Pretty good. So I have a question about it. Which part? What does me not being separate mean? Not existing as some discrete entity separate from experiences; there's not some separate entity that owns experiences and controls them. But anger is a different thing from me. Are you saying that when I get angry I do not exist separate from the anger? Wouldn't the entire causal stream itself be something separate from any experience in the stream? Joe, that is a good point. That is correct. The stream itself is distinct from any particular thing appearing in it. So maybe “not separate” is just repeating the idea the no essentially unified substance idea. There is no simple, indivisible, entity that has the anger, that owns it. There are other thoughts and other things going on at the time -- sensations, other emotions, etc.--a lot is going on -- and I thought your first point was that the entire stream of events also is a different thing. That's right. But the point is there is no substantial, simple, indivisible, separate THING = YOU separate from the momentary collection of events or the stream itself through time. There is just the collection of stuff in the stage at that time, and there are the relations over time that makes up the stream. So there really is no ME. Actually I dislike that way of putting it. You can talk that way if you wish to, I guess. But when people talk that way I feel they are just talking through their hats. Like when Mark called his first book Thoughts without a Thinker? I would rather not talk about Mark. Why not? Because. That's not a reason. Yes it is. So why don't you like saying there really is no me? It is hype talk. Melodramatic but misleading, buddhist hocus-pocus. Nobody really understands what they are saying, nor do they really believe it, when they deny the self exists. At its worst, it is just a mistake, like when Gilbert Ryle was showing someone the buildings,-- Gilbert? The guy who wrote operas? No. That was some guy named Gilbert N. Sullivan, I think. I'm talking about Gilbert Ryle. Ryle? British philosopher, mid-century. He's showing the buildings, the people, and so forth in London or somewhere, and then was asked, “But where is the city?” They were looking for the city apart from the buildings and the people? Yes. You can say the city doesn't exist, but I think it's probably better to say the city exists, but it is not some entity that exists separately from the buildings, the people, and so on. Likewise thinkers are just as real as thoughts. Instead of saying no self I think it is better to put the spotlight on not being separate because our brains tend to short-circuit when we hear that hocus-pocus language-- Why don't you want to talk about Mark? When I was trying to write the M.A. thesis I told him I felt like a thinker without a thought! Huh. That was a joke, Joe. I know.--Know what, Ms. Alexander? I want to tell you something. Sometimes you really can -- Oh, yes?? --What? Sometimes its mean. Ok. Sorry. I was only teasing.--C'mon, Joe. Let's not just talk this time. Let's really do it like you promised last time but never did. Ok. But not because I promised. Since I'm a non-dense sort of guy I can't make sense of promises. How could mere R-glue between events then and events now be the foundation for commitments due to promises? Wow. That is deep! But don't forget thanks to your very own cleverness we now know that Derek's arguments fail. Disastrously. He relied too much on fission. So until you get some better arguments you just better keep your promises and-- I most certainly will. I promise. Great. Another promise. What good are your promises? C'mon buster! Just do it now without all this big talk. Wait,-- wait. -- calm down! Wait?! What for? --You got Godot coming over? Godot? Like in the play? Yes, he is on his way over. He wants to watch us-- Well let's hope-- While we are waiting for Godot, could you go over that no self idea again. I'm no totally sure you were making sense. You go kinda fast. What do you want to know about it? The buddhists often say "no self." What do they mean? what do they mean about no self? Well, I think contemporary English speakers probably have no idea what the Buddha intended to deny when he used language that is translated that way. What way? When what language is translated what way? Pali words like anatta translated as no self. It seems to me he probably was just denying the DENSE self --like denying a substantial soul existing absolutely independently from anything else in the universe. There's no reason to think there is anything like that. Duh. But that doesn't mean there's no self at all. Mark gave me a tape that talks about two truths -- conventional and ultimate. Its conventionally true I exist but ultimately it is false. Right. Or they also say relative truth versus absolute truth, but it is the same difference. So what do you say about the 2 truths? What do you mean by the distinction? What is the difference between conventionally and ultimately true? Something is ultimately true if it is true and does not assume the existence of anything with parts. But something can be conventionally true if there is general agreement about it in a certain group.
Joe, you can use the concept “truth” that way if you want to, but I don't get it. I mean, I don't like it. I prefer to keep it simpler. I don't see why we shouldn't keep it simpler -- to think in terms of one truth about reality. Yet reality may include various levels of dependence. The true story about the world would explain these levels of dependence. This is better, I feel, than talking about levels of truth. Ok. So the self does exist ultimately? Joe, I'm not playing that game exactly. I don't want to use that distinction between two truths or two realities. Of course, one can say that nothing that has parts is ultimately real but is at most conventionally real. But I see no reason to say that. Then you get stick saying cities don't exist. --But cities exist. I was pretty surprised when I found out that cars are made out of little parts even smaller than the wheels, axle, etc.-- I mean, the molecules. Yes, it is amazing. So why not say cars don't really exist-- they don't exist ultimately-- but only the molecules do. You can say it if you want to, but the whole thing depends on the idea that things that have parts cannot be ultimately real. Why assume that? --Things with parts exist. Like cars? Yes. Like cars. Cars have parts that function together. Like I said, you can say that cars are not ultimately real, if you wish to, due to their having parts. But why not say instead that cars exist, but are dependent for their existence on other things. Same for you. You exist but you're not dense. You're not independent, not separate, and so on. Like cars. Yes. That was the example. Moreover, to say cars are merely conventionally real blurs the distinction between what is real and what people might mistakenly agree to be real. Even if everybody believed in unicorns, that doesn't make them real if in fact there are no unicorns at all. So unicorns wouldn't have the same reality as cars even if people everywhere believed in them. Exactly. Right. You blur that difference by saying cars are merely conventionally real. Cars exist by virtue of parts put together in a certain way, and actually the relevant parts might even depend on how people use them, and so on. True, but unicorns have no parts at all, there is only the idea itself. Well --maybe unicorns exist for some people. Joe, look. You have to begin with common sense, otherwise you start out with some hocus pocus leap of faith and will never get clear. Common sense says there is one reality, one world. Of course, some people may believe in unicorns and they may live as if unicorns do exist. But unicorns do not exist just because of that. There just aren't any of those animals to be found anywhere in the shared world. Do you have any reasons to deny the assumption that there is a shared reality? Why trust common sense? Well, I think the burden of proof is on the person who denies it. And despite the intellectual fads there really is no reason the ordinary person needs to be buffaloed by fear that some intellectual somewhere has any sort of compelling critique of realism. But you reject common sense when it comes to people. Well, not completely. No I don't. I think people exist. Just like tables and cars. But true, common sense might assume some things about people that are false. And philosophers like Derek and the Buddha accept the burden of proof in people, to try to show why our ordinary assumptions can be misleading. For instance, we tend to believe we are dense essentially unified beings, like separate little atoms, but in fact there are no dense essentially unified selves at all, anywhere. So we really don't exist? That would be one response, like I said, and perhaps Derek should have taken more seriously that possibility. That should be considered, since our ordinary assumptions about ourselves tend to include so centrally the idea we are dense. Nonetheless his points don't logically require you to say you are not real. One alternative, and what Derek tries to do, is to revise our concept of ourselves Maybe people who didn't go to school so much and who aren't as picky as you are say “no self” just meaning to deny the dense self--to say, there just aren't the separate atom-like souls, or whatever. Ok. Right. Fine. That's a good point. But still I`d say that the “no self” idea is like somebody saying that cars do not exist when they realize that cars are totally composed of smaller parts. Well that is pretty odd. What do we drive around in then? That's what I've been saying. It creates a sort of melodramatic confusion that can be exhilarating. But it doesn't make for a very defensible conceptual scheme. Actually school has little to do with it, by the way, since some of the people who are most confused about these things can be found in schools. It is odd how easy it is to get confused here. For example, when Derek proclaims the Buddha would agree with his reductionism about people, he quotes a number of passages from buddhist sutras-- but it is funny because most of the passages he quotes are eliminativist-- E-what? Eliminativist. They deny that there is a self, and they do so precisely because of the ideas we have been talking about -- careful examination fails to reveal the essentially unified self; on the contrary, all we find are thoughts, sensations, physical parts, etc. So Derek puts these passages from some buddhist sutras in an appendix to his book, to show the buddha would agree, but actually these passages deny that persons exist whereas Derek never even seemed to consider that response. But yet they both agree that there is no separate entity separate from the thoughts and so on. Yes. They agree about that, and actually that is the important point. So Derek was correct that they'd agree about the essential point. So cars exist even though they have parts. God, Joe. Yes. Of course. We already talked about that. Of course they exist. I can just see your Jeep right now through this little mesh window. Are you angry about this? What? No.--Why would I be angry? I don't know. That's what I was wondering. Well, I'm not, I don't think. Zo, listen, I'm not sure how to say this, but I thought the idea was that we can cling to the reality of self. It is a form of attachment when someone hasn't really experienced deep nondual states; I mean, so maybe you havn't...-- Maybe there is some sort of clinging even in your making up your own terms like dense. Wow, that is a very cool idea, Joe. You may be totally right. Sort of a type of conceit, self-exaltation. I've just scratched the surface. Zo, I didn't mean it that way. It's ok. I am not anyone special. In meditation I have had interesting experiences, it is amazing what is there to explore, and it as real as chocolate. Yet I don't put much stock in this or that experience anyway. Actually I believe that what I've experienced or not is completely irrelevant. To what? To freedom of mind. To real freedom. Including freedom with ideas. Actually in some sutras the Buddha refused to get these metaphysical discussions; he was more interested in the sort of thing you just said. What? in how our minds work, and in getting our minds to work so that one is not so wrapped up in the idea of oneself. Its not so much a matter of theory but one's own experience and not living in such a dense way. Like not assuming independence and separation? Yes. Exactly. So what does not independent mean exactly? One traditional view of substances is that they could exist even if nothing else existed. Plato thought the soul is a simple and immutable eternal thing. Descartes had a similar view. Wow. But consider generally what we know about the world: it has a basic space/time structure, galaxies exist, the earth and our solar system is part of a galaxy. There is life on earth, and human life evolved as a form of life. What about the human mind? and what about you, me, this tent, this very conversation?--our minds and bodies and we and this little guy are part of the world of galaxies and everything. And we are dependent in some amazing way upon the whole she-bang! --Speaking of which --or rather, I should say, hoping for which--I mean, if you yourself personally wanted to witness a big she-bang --what? --like you did once before, so long ago, once upon a time, to be honest, it seems it was before time, just a couple of minutes before time began, it was so long ago -- And so? And so what? And so what were you saying? I forgot. About galaxies. I don't have any idea. We are not independent of galaxies, you said. I guess the main point to get clear about is there is absolutely no reason to think we exist independent of the world of galaxies. And even less reason to think that the world we know is just some fantasy or dream that is dependent on our own minds. Like in The Matrix? Yah. Nice movie. But a fantasy. Yes, pure fantasy. It is like Putnam's story that maybe we really are just brains in a vat that is connected with electrodes and programmed so that we seem to be seeing and hearing things exactly the way it seems to us. Like the humans in their pods in the movie. Yes. Or like Descarte's question: how can we know for sure that we are not having a vivid dream when it just seems to be a normal day. My dreams are never that vivid. That's an interesting point, Joe. People vary a lot on how vivid their dreams are. Actually Erin told me that she always asks her philosophy classes about their dreams and usually it breaks down about half and half -- about half the class dreams in vivid colors, with experiences they easily can mistake for their real waking life; and the other half finds that whole idea mysterious. What is it like for you? I have pretty vivid dreams. sometimes I could mistake them for real life. Ok, then how do you know you are not dreaming right now? I can't prove it to you or even myself in an absolutely certain way. But generally it is the degree of detail and coherence, things like that. There really isn't any serious doubt in my mind, partly because there really is no serious alternative to the idea of a real world about which perception gives us basic information, at least in some form. But maybe right now we just are in some computer generated matrix. Joe, it is easy enough just to make up such stories. I could make up those stories all night. But they are just stories. But when you consider what you really believe and what you should believe, I'm not sure such stories are all that relevant. They are interesting, of course, and they may help us clarify what knowledge means --but to leap to the idea that there are only dreams, with no grounding in a basic shared reality -- I'm sorry but I just don't see why the fantasies are anything except entertainment. But how do you know you aren't just a brain in a vat? Well, that's just the same question again. Notice that even when you put it that way you are presupposing there is a real world, of brains and vats etcetera, that is giving rise to what I seem to see and hear and so on. I am not saying perception is simple and direct, but still nobody has anything but very flaky objections to realism, and there is simply no coherent serious alternative in sight. So what I would recommend-- You are angry now! I am not! That's absurd! No, you are angry. I'm just talking! Ok. Well, then --what would you recommend? To focus on the fact there is a real world, and that we are not independent of it. Of course, as people we DEPEND for our existence on mind, human life, the earth, our galaxy, the realities of space/time. This makes us vulnerable, very vulnerable, easily extinguished and not missed much. Religious-- Ok. That's all folks. More specifically, Mr. Carson, that is all I have to say to you until-- Religious people-- So let's do it, baby! C'mon. Before we get extinguished and not missed much. Besides, I'm tired of being angry. --Religious people tend to deny it. Deny what?... Hmm. Zoe, wait. Five minutes. Please. Tell me how you see the connection of what you said with religion. I don't think they agree with you. Ok. Five minutes.-- Thousand one, thousand two ... Ok. I'm going to go to sleep then. I am rather tired. [Snoring sound] ok. I get it now, Mr. Carson, if I may call you that. --May I call you that? Yes. Ok. I think I understand. You are a Martian gigolo, a very expensive one, is that not correct?-- Where I have to be paying you with words. About religion. Is that not correct? What is a gigolo? Male prostitute. What is a prostitute? What?! You are so innocent and naive! A prostitute sells sex for money. Oh. Ok, I get it. But instead of money you will pay me with words? Want to, then? I'm not from Mars, by the way. There are only bacteria in the core over there.
Hmmm. That's pretty interesting. I would like to know more about Mars but for the moment we need to get down to business here. Start your timer! --Five minutes.-- Now. Here is what I have to say about religion. First, some debates, like debates about evolution and creationism, cannot simply be dismissed by saying that there are two realms, science and religion, the way some fancy-pants high profile biologist/philosopher figures like Stephen Jay Gould try to paint it whenever Kansas or somewhere kicks evolution out of high school-- I can't think when you talk that fast. This is not being timed, by the way. It's not? I can't bear it! No, this is not part of the five minutes! You better start talking and making sense or I am going to call up the chat line and look for some other philosopher chick. One who can pay me properly. --Do you see my cell phone anywhere? No! No! Don't call, baby--I can do it for you. -- Where was I? --Ok. As I was saying people like Gould get something going like the buddhist two truths idea, science and religion being two distinct realms. Yet, it seems to me that if as a species we have come into existence via the processes of natural selection, it makes it very difficult indeed-- --Talking fast like that isn't going to make the time go faster. You are not paying me by the word. It is by time. If I can't understand you then it might have to be ten minutes or possibly fifteen. -- That would be unbearable. Ok. I will slow it down. It. Makes. It. Difficult. To. Defend. The. Idea. That. We. Are. Simple. Dense. Substances. Talk right or it doesn't count as money. What makes what difficult? Ok. Ok. If we exist due to natural selection, that makes it difficult to believe we are solid dense substances. This is why people are trying to ban the teaching of evolution in public high schools all across this fine nation. They are wrong to do it and it is surprising how passive the educated public has been about this. But given their world views, it does make sense that they are fighting against evolution. Fancy-pants theorists like to point out it is obvious God could create life via evolution. That is correct. Duh. It is obvious. But where the rub is here is that if evolutionary theory is true, it does indeed challenge a deeply held belief, namely, that we are dense. Not that they would put it that way. They use words like “soul.” But if we came into existence through the natural selection of species, then it really is difficult to get souls into the picture. This colors discussion of controversial issues about the beginning and end of life too. Like abortion? Yes, exactly. It makes a difference. If you think we as persons necessarily are dense, then there must be a sharp borderline between personal existence and nonexistence. Like in the million you/Madonna stories. Right. Where did you hear about that? It was in an email Liddy showed me. Huh, that's weird. I thought I only made up the Madonna version in an email for Epstein --Can Liddy tap email? I'm not supposed to talk about that. Hmph… -- Anyway, uh, the funny thing is that even people who believe in souls have disagreed about where the line should be drawn. For instance, St. Thomas Aquinas believed a soul is associated with the human body at the time of quickening. When is that? When the woman can feel the fetus move inside her. Usually about three months after conception. So Anuiqas wouldn't agree it is at the moment of conception? No. Aquinas. But if we are not dense, then indeterminacy is possible. Exactly, Joe. Not merely possible, but probably that is the correct thing to say about a human being developing in a woman's womb. I would say it is pretty clear there is no person at conception, when a sperm and egg cell have just united. Apparently christians like Aquinas would have agreed --you need more than that. Yet plausibly there is a person before birth. Yes. And since the transition is gradual there will be a period of time when the question is the fetus a person? is empty. --Like Derek says, we can know all the facts there are to know, and still not have an answer. But if you believe there is a dense soul, then you have to reject this indeterminacy. Yes. Exactly. Like Aquinas you have to draw a line. Or if you grant indeterminacy, it is only about our knowledge; it is not about the facts. So this question of density underlies some of the debates that get characterized as about religion. But I'm not sure religion really has much to do with it. Don't we tend to believe the same thing--that we are dense --in daily practice? We assume it in action, and many religious people at least think they believe in souls. You mean they don't really? Of course they think they believe it, which makes for the rub against the theory of evolution. But it isn't really clear to me how many people appreciate what they think they believe. Actually Saint Paul didn't, but that is a different story. Saint who? Saint Paul. One of the original Christians. He believed in the resurrection of the body but not in souls at all.
So he could deal with it? With what? Non-density, the possibility of indeterminacy and so forth? Maybe. So he'd have no problem with the evolution of animal species, including you human beings, by natural selection? I have no idea. What do you mean you humans? I mean, us human. Anyway, it'd probably be easier for Paul than if you have a substantial soul in the picture. But nowadays Christians use that idea --they are using that Greek idea of souls from Plato. I believe that St. Augustine introduced it into Christian thinking in the fourth century, having been influenced by the neo-platonists. It is a truly incredible idea. And, like I said, while people claim to believe in it, I sometimes wonder if they really do-- They don't really believe it? I'm not sure. Here's an example. I remember reading Descartes for the first time. I was sitting in my dorm room when it dawned on me that Descartes was writing that the mind as essentially soul exists, or could exist, totally independent of physical stuff. Wow! I was amazed! How incredible! -- Hmm. --Then suddenly I realized: Wait! That is what I believe too!! Huh. You believed it but didn't even know it? No. I would have at least claimed to believe it! But until I saw it spelt out, I hadn't even appreciated what I thought I believed. And once I realized what it meant it made it a lot more difficult to accept. You thought you believed something but you didn't really? Well, I didn't really appreciate what it meant. --Perhaps I had conflicting beliefs.-- I hadn't really considered that particular belief in relation to other assumptions about my own life, my own body, other people, and so on. Huh. Same thing happened for me, actually, with the ideas about God and hell. What happened? It took a long time for me to put 2 and 2 together. I was taught to believe in God and in the traditional Christian idea of hell for non-believers. --yet if there really is a magnanimous and glorious, intelligent and vast mind at the source of the universe, well, then it would not merely be false that non-christians will get tortured in hell for being not being Christians. What else is it? Well, it is an insult. If I were that Being, I would feel insulted that people think that. huh, I see your point. Might even send them to hell for thinking that. What? Just kidding. What about beings on other planets? Exactly. It is just a flat contradiction. The world just can't be that way. If non-christians are going to get tortured, then it is not even logically possible that a glorious and vast being is at the source. What is then? Well, in that case it must be a puny small-minded bigoted sadist. So that's what you believe? Joe, c'mon. I don't believe any of it any more. Once I looked into the ideas, they fell apart. For me, though, the ideas originally fell apart precisely because of my faith. Why are you so angry about it? What? I'm not angry. My point was just that if people take a moment just to look at what they think they believe, they might get some interesting and wonderful surprises. Not only religious people. What do you mean? Well, think about souls again. Many non-religious people would say they do not believe in souls -- but then in practice, in daily actions, in habits and attitudes and thoughts, we go on assuming something very much like it! Like what? Like souls. Jeesh, Zo! First you say that people who think they DO believe in souls really do NOT, because they haven't thought about it enough, like you sitting in your dorm room reading Descartes. And now you are saying that people who think they do NOT believe in souls really DO!? Yah, that's funny isn't it. I would say most everybody could benefit by looking into what we think we believe about this. This is what Derek is trying to get us to focus on. What? What giving up belief in the soul really means. Putting 2 and 2 together. For instance, connecting beliefs about ourselves with assumptions about practical matters, how we live, how we think. But he has not succeeded yet. So someone who says there are two realms, science and religion --they might simply be resisting the process of putting 2 and 2 together? Yes, Joe! Exactly!--You are right. Steven Jay Gould's two realms lets him just keep his ordinary assumptions about himself, about his values, and so on. He doesn't have to think very hard about what it really means for life if humans evolved by the processes of natural selection. Same thing maybe with the buddhists who think in terms of two truths. How? We do not exist ultimately; but conventionally we exist, they can say, insofar as density is presupposed in practical life. At least in popular presentations of buddhism, it is common to say we do not exist ultimately, but we do exist conventionally. Same thing, actually, that the post-modern social constructionists say. My point is that the distinction between ultimate truth and conventional or social truth masks some interesting questions, precisely the same ways as does keeping science and religion in separate realms. You are saying that if you use the two truths or two realms distinctions, the rejection of souls doesn't have much of an impact on our lives, on our conventions etcetera? Exactly. Maybe it shouldn't have much of an impact. I'm not saying it would necessarily. In fact, I think Derek became way too melodramatic about this when he began proclaiming the end of punishment, commitment, compensation for past injustices, and so on. But still we should try to think about it. Like for marriage? Right. Exactly. But he never would talk about that. Why not?-- Did you want to? Huh? By the way, Mr. Carson, if I may call you that, and you did say I could, I was wondering if you possibly were going to have a half-price bargain basement sale today, sir, and could go ahead and-- So about the question, then, do I really exist?--it still is a good question then. I'm not so sure it is. But in any case it is unnecessary to get fixated on it. Who's fixated? On what? On this little-- On the question of one's existence? Both east and west got fixated for some reason. Zo, c'mon. Wait. Stop. You have to pay more. Are you kidding? I've been talking like all night! You have to do more. About what? The fixation on the question of our existence. Well, in modern western philosophy people usually start with Descartes, but he gave the question short shrift because-- slow down, baby. --because he assumed he had epistemic reasons for direct knowledge of substantial souls--the dense, independent self. He began with his method of trying to doubt everything he could, which led him to his famous formula, “I think, therefore I am.” With that, he thought he'd got something absolutely certain, and from there he went straight without passing Go to the idea that he exists as a substantial entity with real independence from any other thing. He totally rejected the idea of his being dependent on anything else. I just marvel when I think about it. Quite an amazing idea. Even more amazing, we all tend to believe something very much like that about ourselves, as you so astutely pointed out. That is the idea I call density. You still have two minutes to go so there is very little reason for you to be panting like that. Two minutes? You can't be serious! Yes. So what about Descartes? Is that all? I think your watch is running slow. No. It's correct. His way of going about things definitely was weak, feeble, decripit-- for example, sort of like this little guy here has become, I certainly am extremely sorry to say. It was an interesting experiment, to try to doubt everything including his own existence, but in the end it was feeble precisely because he jumps out of the game all-too-easily by positing the dense soul and, to make room for it, he posits two realms, physical and mental,--equally of course he was trying to make room for free actions resulting from mental activity, to make room for them, that is, in light of the amazing new discoveries in physics based on a deterministic laws governing all physical events-- but later philosophers rejected his assumption of a nonphysical soul, and in rejecting the soul some later philosophers like Hume still get stuck with the question of existence. And interest in this question persists to this very day. which may be why western-educated people are such suckers for pop-buddhist eliminativism when they hear about it. Huh. Please baby baby! Please do it now immediately, I beg you! Whoa. Slow down, cowgirl! Like I paid you for! Let's not rush things here. You have not paid in full yet. Besides, didn't you ever hear about foreplay? Yes, I did. I heard! --E-what? Immediately! No, about the self. Eliminativism. No self. The very topic of our discussion. It's eliminated from the picture. About these things, Derek admirably takes a balanced approach. So what he says is --we do exist but only by virtue of relations between events, that is, psychological and physical continuity--the R-relation-- even in the absence of anything like a soul. There is no independent entity existing separate from the stream of events. Is that correct? That is correct, sir-- We exist but we're not dense? Right. but he did not use that term. Which is my term, by the way, and not that sonofabitch Liddy's. some buddhists on the other hand bring up this two truths business, as you so astutely have pointed out. There is no self ultimately; the self is only conventionally real. But as I may already have mentioned, I don't think this way of putting it is particularly helpful. Western theologians at various points have used a similar two truths idea too, explaining how things are one way for us but different for God. This certainly gets them out of some tight jams! Now nonreligious people use it too, like Gould. The whole business is rather slimy, even slimier as a matter of fact, if I may say so -- ok, ok. -- at this very moment is so, so very eager and it needs, it pleads for attention from you, kind Sir. Please? We are on our knees begging you! I see you are on your knees. It is a most pitiful sight. Please? Have you no dignity left at all? However, you still have one full minute to talk. And if you have run out of ideas too soon, because you were talking too fast, so fast that you are even sweating, then I am afraid we do not have a deal. Ok. Let me continue without these constant interruptions. In any case, I feel the 2Ts distinction--by the way, for convenience let us abbreviate the Two Truths doctrine in that manner--instead of saying “Two Truths” every time I will say simply “2Ts” so as to save time, since I do not want to waste all of my energy having to say the whole words every time, since I need to save up my energy, for I am going to need every drop of energy that I can save up, because in exactly forty-five seconds, forty-three seconds now, --tick tick tick-- I am going to get fucked by a Martian, YIPPEE!!-- I am not from Mars. --That didn't count in the timing. You still have one full minute to go. --so the 2 trees doctrine--excuse me, the 2Ts doctrine, as I was saying-- You are not really as funny as you think you are-- Yes? No? As I was saying, until I was very rudely interrupted by the Martian gigolo who is right here getting ready --yippee-ai-ay!! HURRAY!-- the 2Ts idea really is not necessary, in any case, for what the buddhists want to say. By the way, this two truths idea --excuse me, this 2Trees, I mean, 2Ts idea--I always get that wrong--primarily was in the region around India and Tibet. By the time buddhism became Chan in China and then Zen in Japan, then California they mainly just wrote poems, chopped wood, washed dishes, and were not very interested in theory. Is that what happened to you when you started painting? --You went Zen? Sort of. No. Not really. I never saw it as either/or. Anyway what I did or not is beside the point. So the theory doesn't matter? No, Joe. Ideas are important because they ramify directly into how we live. They are very important. And I still like to think and talk about the ideas and theories. Like we are doing right now, although at this precise moment I have other priorities on my mind and would prefer-- 30 seconds. And not just this me-bop stuff. I want real ideas. But you're the one who asked-- 30 seconds, or I may have to catch a plane out of here. Oh, darling, that would be too tragic! What if the plane crashed? What I am getting at is that people can tend to get too caught up in the ontology etcetera and miss the beauty of things. Or they might get caught up in the beauty and wonder but miss freedom of mind. But who am I, darling, to be preaching about these matters? I am talking for one reason only. None of that counted. You do not really care if the plane crashes. As for ontology, though, if I may continue without these constant interruptions, what I was going to say is some things do exist by virtue of conventions, habits of mind, patterns of thought, whatever: I am thinking of things like people, sure, and also cities, baseball games, dances, state legislatures-- these types of things do not exist separate from forms of thought. One could even imagine various new fun games, such as if you-- 15 seconds. Ok. Uh. Yet the conventions, patterns, etc. surely do exist, of course; otherwise they wouldn't give rise to the games, dances, my darling. Therefore, they-- and we --really do exist! Actually I find it difficult to deal with people who so very casually-- Is this why you got pissed last year when you were on Larry King? What? What are you talking about? The questions about ontology on CNN's Larry King Live. What does that have to do with anything?-- I didn't get pissed off-- I thought you did. But I was really calm during that one. Zoe! That's a good example!--Did you notice what Mark says about the use of the word “really”?-- what?-- --where he says his own therapist pointed out that he always used that word really precisely when he wasn't sure what he was saying. It's on page 91. Would you mind not bringing up Mark? Oh.-- Ok. Sure. Thank you. --Why not? Anyway my point was our existence as persons is totally dependent on other things -- human bodies, thoughts, and so forth. Maybe even conventions, patterns of thought. It is this dependence whether or not you want to add non-existence that is the key thing. This is very different from saying we exist just because of conventional agreement; for we could even agree there are dense souls and our practices might presuppose them --but nonetheless our agreement doesn't make them real if they don't exist, they are merely fictional, even if useful fictions. -- There. That is absolutely enough. It really is no more complicated than that. Ok. Now do me. Thoughts? What really would be the difference, I mean if we really did assume souls in our practices? Isn't that just another way to say they depend on our thoughts?-- If you do not do me right now I am going to call the Better Business Bureau and file a complaint. --Or on patterns of thoughts? And I will sue you in small claims court. What do you mean-- Mr. Carson, please do not misunderstand me, sir. I did not mean in any way to imply when I inadvertently mentioned small claims-- --patterns of thoughts? Habits. Thoughts? What sort of thoughts or patterns did you mean? Thoughts using the ideas: I, mine, we, ours. Our normal use of these concepts might presuppose density, and they might play a role in the conditions by virtue of which we exist. In just the way that various concepts, rules, are involved in the occurrence of a basketball game. So thoughts play a role, as in, for example-- For example, Let us fuck! On our planet we actually don't even use ideas like that at all. Like fuck? No, we use that all the time.-- I mean ideas like I, us, me. We don't use them at all. Really? --Where might that be?-- I mean, since it isn't Mars? I'm not supposed to talk about it. Liddy says there could be trouble. You don't use ideas like me? I had to learn ideas like that when we got here.
So before you got here you never talked or thought in terms of me and you? Nope. What was it like? It wasn't really like anything. It was like I had a blanket over my head all the time. That is why it puzzles me when Mark talks about the value of losing oneself or about the self being dissolved or submerged, like on p. 47, in an orgasm where he says-- In a what? Orgasm. It is so nice to hear you say that word, now let's-- -- “there is no longer any foothold or point of reference, but it is not chaos.” It is better to be self-conscious. Uh, Joe. Maybe he has in mind an experience that requires self-consciousness but also transcends it. Some people talk in terms of different levels, like subpersonal, personal, --and then transpersonal. Is that like the third, first, second person forms of speech--like she, me, you? Hmm. Not exactly. You as transpersonal --I like it, though. Better than a lot of what you read about it. So having developed consciousness and self-consciousness in terms of me there might be something new that becomes possible at the transpersonal level? I guess. I haven't really thought about this much. You just get a lot of whacky stuff being said about it which is totally unreadable, and rather discourages interest in it. Maybe falling in love one would do it. But falling in love with someone usually has quite a lot of me mixed into it. God Carson you are certainly right about that. Not always though. At least maybe not always. Actually I have no idea.-- I think they usually mean transcending the personal level altogether. At any rate, I guess the idea is that transcending me would not simply be like going back to a non-person robot stage. Is that what you are? or were? --a robot? Not exactly. Our genetic structure is designed artificially but we are grown like other animals. In fact my DNA is designed to look exactly like human DNA so as to avoid detection on this planet.
I am not sure the information is correct in all the details. Really? Could you write it down where it's wrong? Where? right on you? I guess. Yes. I'll need a pen with indelible ink. They were supposed to use the Human Genome chart that SETI broadcast. Where did you come from? I can't say. I'm not sure, actually. We lost that information. Lost it? Where? Do you remember when Orson Welles did that radio broadcast about the Martians invading and a lot of people thought it was real and started to panic. Yah. I mean I have heard about it. War of the Worlds. It was long before I was born. Right. Then there was that great movie, Joe-- Buckaroo Bonzai in the Eighth Dimension where the idea was that the broadcast was for real after all. It really did happen. Zoe, it really did happen. It was real. But it wasn't Martians. My father was in that movie. Liddy's father was in it too. You mean Buckaroo Bonzai was for real? Yes, a documentary. But I thought Buckaroo Bonzai got all of the alien invaders to leave. That is wrong! Oh, really? My father and mother escaped. So did Liddy's. But I thought you just said you were made in a test tube. Well, I was. But I was adopted. But I thought all of your names were John. That was their generation. Wow. You are truly blowing my mind, Joe. Zoe, listen. Don't tell anyone, ok? Well, I can't-- Please, Zo, promise me you won't tell anyone. Liddy says the FBI already might be looking into us.
Ok, Joe. Since you're asking, I promise. I won't tell anyone. Please don't. Except maybe Erin. I might just accidentally blurt it out. Ok. But make her promise too. Ok. Ok then, Zo. --Look. About what you were saying about people. -- But wait. I thought you all wore sunglasses. Zoe, get real. That is way out of style now. Anyway --so if a person's existence--if your existence as a person-- depends on thoughts involving the ideas I, me, and so forth, I was wondering what experiences if any would be associated with your body, this body-- [slapping sound] Whoa! Oh, sorry! No it's ok! Spank me again, baby! You can do that any time! C'mon! Let's go then! Really? You don't mind? Of course not! I am not quite made out of paper and glue, you know! That would be an extra charge, then. If you want that too. I would have to charge you more. One more minute, to be exact. So expensive! But I thought that was part of the normal package deal. Oh, no --it's extra. So.--Are you buying? Oh yes! Ok. What if such thoughts about myself did not occur? I mean, like you said, after one has developed self-consciousness? It's actually a great question, sir. It is a magnificent question, I sincerely mean that and I am not saying that only to fill up time or get you to pinch me and put me in the cowgirl tiedown while you are doing me Martian-style. Pinching?! The tiedown?! I don't think you can afford all of that. One also could imagine it in a different way: Those thoughts do occur but they occur in certain unusual ways not connected --as they usually are --with the image or background assumption of a solid dense self, separate, controlling, independent, and so on--and perhaps not so wrapped up with attitudes of greed, craving, fear. This is the main buddhist emphasis, by the way, no matter what you might want to say about ontology. And in my opinion, it is here where Derek should look for practical ramifications for morality and practical life. More of a personal change? yes. It is odd how the ontological views are totally mainstream but this is hardly on the map. Like in universities? Yes. Like Gould trying to keep the scientific views separate from practical life? Well, yes, maybe that is related. Right. It is not just Gould. You can find examples all over the place. For instance, Jaegwon Kim says-- Kim? he's as mainstream in contemporary philosophy as they come-- In America? Yes. He sounds Japanese. Well, Korean originally, I think. But yes, he's as mainstream as they come in contemporary analytical philosophy. He is clear and precise. Huh. When he first came to America to study I heard this story that he intended to go to Mississippi or somewhere because it was warm there but there was some mistake about M's when he was getting on planes --maybe it was Mars. Right, yah maybe--so anyway he ended up in Minnesota where it is cold but he didn't have the money to go any further. Turns out there were some great philosophers of science at Minnesota and he ended up studying with them. It worked out quite well for everyone. Missenota? The state. Minnesota. Next to North Dakota, way up there. What does Kim say? He says there is a near consensus that the idea of mind as independent, simple, immutable substance generates insuperable difficulties and puzzles. The mind isn't dense. Exactly. On the other hand, I think intellectuals need to pay more attention to their rejection of density. It is not radical ontologically, and actually I don't think it has radical consequences for theories about rationality or morality or politics the way Derek imagined it. Yet where it could make a difference in how we think and act and interact in daily life. You mean in our experience of life? Exactly, the personal change. Actually there is a sort of complacency about the ramifications, in my opinion. For instance, despite what he says, Kim seems to go on to treat people as substances. Even while he explicitly recognized that the surface grammar of our language can be misleading about “mind” he seems to fail to notice the same points apply to use of “I” and “me”. I'm talking about the early pages of his Philosophy of Mind book. Also when he discusses Fred later on. You lost me, baby. --Fred? I've got it right here. Hand me the flashlight. Is this the Uncle Fred you and Erin are always talking about? No, this Fred is just a made-up example in Kim's book. Uncle Fred is a philosopher-poet from a hundred years ago. Ok, here it is. Fred's belief that he exists dot dot dot does not require that anything other than Fred exist dot dot dot the content of these beliefs --he means the content of Fred's belief about himself--is independent of conditions external to Fred dot dot dot --It seems to me that what he is saying assumes that the belief “I exist” refers to a dense entity. Well, so what? Also Derek does pretty much the same thing in his writings. It is very odd. He freely imports the commonsense assumptions about density into his language and discussion. Here's where analytic philosophers could benefit from a dose of buddhist eliminativism. Of course I hope you realize I'm not saying they should actually deny the reality of self, but they need to see that just because eliminativism is not required they can't simply import all the commonsense assumptions about self into their discussions. I'm sorry. This is really too widesweeping a claim. Like about fission? When Parfit assumed the Z-Kirk and Y-Kirk on the different planets would have to be distinct. He's assuming that there's something dense about each of them, so they have to be distinct. Yah, Joe. Exactly. Whereas for any reductionist theory, relations between events are central to identity. There are unifying relations at a time, as well as across times, and what you showed me the other night is that the ones across times can be treated as primary. My head is starting to hurt. Me too. Actually could you just adjust my bandage? How? In the back. Ok. Just pull it down some. --Like that? Yah, thanks. I suspect the real practical stuff doesn't really have much to do with language or even how we think, but probably has more to do with the heart than with figuring things out abstractly. Derek pointed to this when he says the glass tunnel dissolves, when he sees himself in reductionist terms, and he does not feel so separate from others. You mean not operating so closely around the sense of me? Maybe. I am not sure I understand that exactly. There can be a sort of clinging in one's heart. I believe the Buddha was talking about developing minds -- hearts-- like that-- I mean, free of clinging. Its not a matter of getting your theory straightened out so much as abandoning selfcenteredness. How do you do it? His approach was by practicing meditation to develop mindfulness, so as to be able to see clearly what is really going on in experience, rather than always simply interpreting it through a cloud of concepts and expectations. --In particular, the cloud of concepts involving myself. How? Lots of ways might be possible. There actually are dozens of meditation techniques. On the other hand, Krishnamurti always took the Nike approach, just do it. Just drop the greed, selfcenteredness, and take a different approach. People can just begin to look within when they get sick of it. But how do you meditate? There are plenty of methods for it. Haven't you tried it? Yah, I've been trying every day. I can't sit still long enough. Joe, timing it isn't necessary or even all that relevant. You don't have to measure it so much. And there lots of approaches to it. Sitting, walking, chanting, visualizing, and so on. People connect with it in different ways but the idea in the beginning is to bring one's attention back again and again to a rather neutral object. By neutral I mean not too emotionally charged. Mindfulness in this way helps one develop deeper concentration, which can be done. Without question it can be done, and it is a separate distinct realm of human activity. It requires effort and determination; it is not a haphazard thing. And indeed one can push some limits. I mean concentration can be developed, deepened, as a special activity of its own even though it is involved in everything we do. And then with deeper concentration, mindfulness opens-- You are saying the concentration required for normal activities like reading-- Yah, that's right. reading, writing or painting or hitting home runs or making free throws-- --or, say, touching your-- Yes! Yes, sir! That is correct! And concentration can be refined and deepened in truly remarkable ways. You aimed very nicely there, sir, if I might say so myself.
So how do you do it? You're doing it! I mean how do you meditate? Like I've told you before. Still the same. Yah, but when I try to do it I lose track. Don't try so hard. Don't evaluate so much. I mean I lost track how to meditate. For most people a good way to start is simply with the breath: simply aiming attention to catch the beginning of the in-breath, mindfully observing the physical sensations, and simply sustaining the attention face to face with the flow of sensations. Repetitive, simple, just doing it. Catching the beginning of the out-breath, and so on, maintaining energetic continuity from moment to moment, diligent, alert. So is meditating why you never really get angry? I get angry, Joe. You know that. I thought you just said you didn't-- I don't think so-- Yes you did. Well, look. You were right before. My critical and evaluating, judgmental mind--it is a form of anger. Not anger exactly. but I see what you mean. The clarity of thought can be aggressive, almost has to be aggressive. Or at least assertive. At least that's my experience. I thought you just said you don't need to measure and evaluate all the time. Well, I did said that, didn't I. Yes. Talk is cheap. Huh. Anyway, I'm sort of conditioned not to fight at all, so I have to deny the anger is there, I guess. Yes. I noticed there have been times when I was waiting for you to fight with me, but instead you just gazed off into the mystery of things. Really? Like when? Couple of weeks ago when we were up here, for instance, before I blasted the tent, when you were grilling the veggie burgers and I was talking about chapter 7. I could tell you were angry but you just stared into the fire. It was right before your naked speech on the picnic table. I did? Yes. Is this ok? Oh yes. This is very ok, baby. Huh. Maybe one could get angry--even fight--but in a framework where it isn't linked to a solid sense of self? -- not all tied up with that impenetrable fixed idea of me-doing, me-striving, me-getting. Yes, that constant feeling of me as background to everything. Thanissaro calls these assumption= You read the book? I have it right here, give me the light-- Wait! Don't stop! There was one passage -- yes--here it is--the deeply rooted sense of I AM-- Yah. Hmm. -- a conceit coloring all perception at the most fundamental level. Joe, when the Hebrews noticed this thought, its persistence, they made it the source and center of the whole universe. Its in the Old Testament.-- “The Great I AM.” The what? The Great I AM. No, I mean the Old what? In the Bible. It's a book. Oh. Anyway, then he quotes a passage where the Buddha is saying this: Owing to the fading of ignorance and the arising of clear knowing the thoughts “I am,” “I am this,”..., “I will be such and such..” do not occur. Hmmm.. Do not occur. That would be our thinker without a thought-- at least without thoughts of me. Is that possible? Did you really think before you started using that idea me? I don't know. I got around ok. I got food. But no. Now it seems to me that I didn't think or perceive anything at all. It was just an impersonal stream of mental events, like Parfit's R-stream but not glued together very well. You didn't think about yourself at all? Yes, but only using my name, only in a third person way. “Joe this,” “Joe that.” I think maybe I wasn't a person at that time, it is so different now. Hmm. Maybe not. Remember there isn't necessarily a sharp borderline here between person and non-person, if you want to get back to that stuff. Yet the occurrence of first-person self-referential thoughts of me might be necessary as part of the person-glue recipe. In fact, John Locke, the original western R-theorist, says something much like that--being a person is seeing oneself as the self-same conscious being at various times and places. Well, I had a sense of myself as the same Joe at different times and places. But I never thought or felt in terms of me or you. There was nothing like what Kant called the I think that accompanies all perceptions. It was just the impersonal Joe thinks. God, Carson. Now you are reading Kant? You told me about it in the car. Oh right. It's like what I just read, what the Buddha calls the deeply rooted sense of “I am”-- a conceit coloring all perception at the most fundamental level. A subtle self-centered will to power, we might say. Craving of power after power that ceases only in death. That's Hobbes. Uh-huh. It is very sweet like a catchy pop tune that is everywhere on the radio for a couple of weeks. But then it gets too sweet, it gets sickening, then even disgusting. Its no fun. We're isolated. We can't even dance. Can we turn it off? Or maybe turn it down? Let's just say it is an empirical question whether the “I think”-like thoughts must accompany all perception and so on. Likewise it is an empirical question whether there can be a freedom from all thoughts. Or perhaps within thoughts, not clinging to them. After all, just having a true theory here, independent of experience, would be rather pointless anyway. What does empirical mean? It's a question you can't figure out just by thinking some more, you have to look, observe, test, investigate it in experience. Look at what? Joe, if the self-centered greedy bittersweet ideas did not occur, or occurred in a less dense way, I wonder how we would treat each other, whether there'd be consequences. Zoe, I think I understand this part. It definitely would depend on what else we felt or didn't feel. I think the role of the transpersonal you would be the key. Maybe so. We can inquire into that too. Its not a matter of figuring it out in advance, but rather inquiring into our own experience. So it isn't all or nothing? I don't know. The buddha talks about abandoning preoccupation with self, like in the passages you read. But then he uses impersonal language about himself, terms like “the one gone beyond” and says the one gone beyond is deep, fathomless, like the sea. Huh. By the way, if I weren't ultimately real then I couldn't be ultimately obligated, could I? What? Obligated? Yes. Why are you bringing that up? Obligated in a moral way. For instance? Not to steal, for instance. True. If you don't exist, all is permitted! What? If you are only conventionally real, morality is only conventionally binding. Hmm. That wouldn't be a good result, Joe. Why not? It sounds good to me. Conventions are social. So the result is the same sort of thing you have in contemporary relativism --morality as socially constructed. It's not? Not the core precepts. At least, not in my opinion. Some of what's called morality is cultural, that is true. But since all cultures agree on some things, I see no reason to say its merely cultural. But maybe it depends on people being a certain way. Yes, of course. The basic norms are dependent for their validity-- the basic worms? No, norms, you idiot. Guides for action. How'd we get off on this? I say some are univerally and objectively valid, yet their validity is dependent on other things -- it is similar to how we as people exist yet are dependent for our existence. We do exist. But we depend on other things like molecules of water. If we don't drink water we will die. Yes, that too, but I mean if water molecules had not existed neither would we ever have existed. I am saying that likewise there are universally valid moral norms. But they depend on other things for their validity, such as the existence of persons like ourselves. Valid moral norms? I still don't get it. Like what? Not to harm. What does that mean? Well like you said. Not stealing somebody's car, for instance. Huh. What do you know about morality anyway? Or like keeping your word. When you make a deal, like if you sell me something, and I pay you for it, then you would deliver it --on time. What do you know about morality though? Not just fool around for awhile, then try to distract me. --You probably are just an amoral poser-cowgirl who wants-- Yes, sir! Si, yo quiero!-- See?! --por favor, baby! See?! What? Just because I want to fuck I can't be moral? No. I don't think so. Oh baby, you've been listening to Liddy way too much!-- It wasn't Liddy. Who then? Dr. Laura. What did she say? Because you want to, you can't be moral. She said it about me? Yes. I am sorry to hear that. --Anyway I don't really care what you guys think, c'mon yo quiero-- Zoe? Yes? --What are you-- me-Tar-Zen. Oh. Funny. --It's about time! You-Jane. Yah. C'mon.We ain't nothing but mammals,
What? I thought we are persons too. True, ok, sorry I forgot. Got too excited.-- Actually I'm not sure any more that you are a mammal.--Anyway. C'mon--swing me jungle boy. [Pause] Joe? Oh sorry, I almost dozed off. C'mon! Uh, you want me The Jungle Boy now? Oh yes! You will have to keep talking then. Ok, I can talk. [Pause] About what? [Pause] Joe? [Pause] [snoring sound] Oh, fuck. [snoring sound] What a loser. [File end] |
go to third night
use web browser to go back
return to homepage The Z-Files