Being absolutely right, you’re wrong

You can't have "right" without "wrong." So if what you say is absolutely 100% certain, no doubt about it – that can't be true.

The Taoists figured this out a long time ago. Yin requires yang. Up needs down. Truth depends on falsity.

Much more recently, Karl Popper made falsifiability the cornerstone of what distinguishes a scientific theory. I echoed his ideas in "If a religion can't be wrong, it surely is."

I keep coming back to this notion, because both intuitively and logically it appeals to me. Sure, something may be real, yet improvable or indescribable.

Existence, for example. "What is, is." That statement sounds marvelously correct. And it is. But it doesn't mean anything. Not really.

"The Dream Weaver," a book I'm reading now, talks about words without meaning.

Basically, when you use a word, it needs a criterion. There must be a way to use the word incorrectly. It can't be the case that everything is selfish, or that everything is natural. If that were the case, then the word would become meaningless. If everything were considered natural, what would be the point of asking, Is this thing natural? It's sort of paradoxical in a way: I create a word that means everything and, in doing so, it means nothing.

Now, I'm fine with indescribable meaninglessness. That could well be the most meaningful thing in the world. Lots of experiences just are what they are – incommunicable to anyone else, but filled with Wow! for the experiencer.

Like the Greeks, we need to distinguish Truth from Beauty. A rose is a rose is a rose. That's beauty. Water is two molecules of hydrogen and one molecule of oxygen. That's truth.

A rose can't be anything other than a rose. Several molecules can be something other than water.

Similarly, much religious or metaphysical dogma can't be wrong because words are used in a way that defy falsification.

"God is everything."
"Consciousness is all."
"Whatever happens has to happen."
"A perfect guru never makes a mistake."
"Everything is destined."
"The world is illusion."
"Jesus is coming."

In each case, someone making the statement can't be pinned down if you try to show they could be wrong. They always have a way to wriggle out from skepticism because there's no "there" to what they're saying.

As I noted before, Eastern philosophies and religions are as prone to this as Western ones are. The Bible is true because it says in the Bible, "This is the word of God." The guru is perfect because his predecessor was flawless, and perfect gurus can't err when they appoint a successor.

Whenever I run up against words that can't be wrong, I start to lose interest in them – since they can't be right.

This explains why I've found myself gritting my teeth and filling the margins with question marks as I make my way through the last chapters of "Consciousness is All," a book that started off more interestingly than it is ending up for me.

In the beginning I liked how the author directed my attention to how awareness works. But when he turned to saying (over and over, in various ways) that everything is consciousness, it sounded just the same as "God is love."

Religious. Dogmatic. Meaningless.

Yet those words sound so wonderful. They explain it all! Karl Popper writes:

I found that those of my friends who were admirers of Marx, Freud, and Adler, were impressed by a number of points common to these theories, and especially by their apparent explanatory power. These theories appeared to be able to explain practically everything that happened within the fields to which they referred. The study of any of them seemed to have the effect of an intellectual conversion or revelation, opening your eyes to a new truth hidden from those not yet initiated.

Once your eyes were thus opened you saw confirming instances everywhere: the world was full of verifications of the theory. Whatever happened always confirmed it. This its truth appeared manifest; and unbelievers were clearly people who did not want to see the manifest truth; who refused to see it, either because it was against their class interest, or because of their repressions which were still "un-analysed" and crying aloud for treatment.

Recently there's been quite a bit of discussion on this blog about awareness. This can be another example of a word that doesn't mean anything, yet can seem deeply meaningful.

Yes, without awareness we can't be aware of anything. And without existence, nothing exists. Nor would life be lively if we weren't alive.

These are realities – awareness, existence, life. But they're not truths, not in any sort of scientific, logical, or evidentiary sense, because there is no untruth to which they can be contrasted.

How could I be aware of unawareness, or exist as nonexistence, or live a non-life? If such were possible, then speaking of these contraries would have some purpose.

As it is, discussions of these subjects can end up sounding to me like the oft-heard quote on sports radio: "It is what it is." (frequently spoken after a devastating loss or embarrassing athletic moment)

Don't get me wrong: there's nothing more interesting to me than awareness, existence, and life. That's because I've got a huge interest in being aware of existing after I stop living my life.

It's just that when I hear talk of "awareness never ends" it strikes me as no different in kind from "Jesus saves." Namely, a belief that can't be tested. At least, not in this life – which is the only life I can be sure of.

While I have a fondness for philosophies that assure me life is just fine exactly the way it is, and I don't need to do anything about it, I'm skeptical about whether there's any meaning to these assurances beyond the warm, fuzzy feeling they produce in my often-anxious soul.

Zen tells me, "first there is a mountain; then there isn't; then there is." I also have heard that the world appears just the same to an enlightened sage as an unenlightened fool. So why not remain a fool if there's no way to tell the difference?

In the end, there could well be no beginning and no end. But so long as we're not there, isn't there a "here" as well as a "there"?

[Note: Popper's proposition that falsifiability is what distinguishes science isn't universally accepted, for sure. See here and here (scroll down to Goldstein).

But even though I don't claim to fully understand the objections to his view, one reason seems to be that falsifying isn't what scientists really do, mostly. They set out to prove rather than disprove.

Fine. I'd be just as happy if metaphysical propositions could be proven to be true, rather than capable of being shown to be false. Sort of seems like the same difference to me, but someone more knowledgeable is free to prove me wrong.]

Update: This blogger has a nice take on falsifiability, viewing it as a necessary but not sufficient condition for a scientific hypothesis.

Which raises the question…if you hold to a metaphysical, spiritual, or religious belief, what would it take for you to admit, "I'm wrong"?

If you can't come up with an answer, that belief either is blind faith or not really anything capable of being believed (as noted above, awareness, existence, and life are outside the arena of belief, being pre-requisites for playing the game).

Comments

[Rain]

The problem with all such discussions is we have our own perspective and just because someone else 'knows' something, does not mean they do. They might want to know it and their perception is clouded by their desire. Prayers that are answered are like that because were they or was it coincidence? I think we each, in the end, have to work this out for ourselves.

I am not afraid of life ending (suffering worries me more) and it's not because I know for sure what happens. I do think, assuming our 'awareness' doesn't end with bodily death, that it'll be interesting to find out what really does come next.

Although I am okay with it being dust to dust, I don't believe that is the case. Between my regressions, experiences of friends with past life memories, coincidences in my own life, books I have read, my grandchildren's stories when they were too young to know what they were supposed to know, I believe reincarnation is the answer for what happens. Reincarnation (and that does not have to mean the exact Hindu, Buddhist or New Age views of it) gives us the greatest possible reason to make this life as effective as we can because if we do have to come back, we will literally reap what we have been sowing. But I don't 'know' that reincarnation is true.

I think of all the beliefs out there, the one that would scare me the most to believe was true would be what fundamentalist christians believe. It would mean the god of this earth was something I would rather not believe he/she is. It however has not been my personal experience with the spiritual realm; and so I don't think they are right.. but as you said.. there is a truth out there. We just don't know what it is for sure while we are living here.

Some say that truth is relative and whatever each person believes will be true for them. It's like that movie "What Dreams may Come" with Robin Williams and well worth watching if someone is artistic and interested in spiritual 'what-ifs'. I don't believe that though. I believe there is a truth. I just can't prove what it is right now :)

[tAo]

Brian,

A few comments about your post...

Brian writes: "You can't have "right" without "wrong." So if what you say is absolutely 100% certain, no doubt about it – that can't be true."

-- Not exactly, it just means that your certainty may or may not prove to be true.

Brian writes: "Yin requires yang. ... Truth depends on falsity."

-- Again, not exactly. I woud say that whatever, whichever, IS actually true... then that makes the rest of the options false. Except of course in cases where there are several things that are true.

Brian writes: "Karl Popper made falsifiability the cornerstone of what distinguishes a scientific theory."

-- OK... maybe he has a point... maybe he doesn't.

Brian writes: "I echoed his ideas in "If a religion can't be wrong, it surely is."

-- Isn't it rather that... if someone SAYS that some religion cannot be wrong, then they THEY are wrong (because the reigion many or may not be wrong, but we don't really know if its wrong or right).

Brian writes: "Sure, something may be real, yet improvable or indescribable."

-- I agree, but I think you must have meant "un-proveable"?

Brian writes: "Existence, for example. "What is, is." That statement ... doesn't mean anything."

-- It doesn't mean anything, but mainly because in order to be able to say it, there must necessarily be existence.

Brian writes: "Similarly, much religious or metaphysical dogma can't be wrong because words are used in a way that defy falsification."

-- I assume that you must mean that they SAY that "it can't be wrong".

Brian writes: "As I noted before, Eastern philosophies and religions are as prone to this as Western ones are."

-- Yes, of course.

Brian writes: "Whenever I run up against words that can't be wrong, I start to lose interest in them – since they can't be right."

-- You mean when someone SAYS that the words or the ideas they are saying can't be wrong. The words or ideas may be right or they may be wrong... but SAYING that they can ONNY be right... then that is what is wrong.

Brian writes: "Recently there's been quite a bit of discussion on this blog about awareness. This can be another example of a word that doesn't mean anything, yet can seem deeply meaningful."

-- Yes this CAN be an example, all depending on how it is used. But I would not say that is is ALWAYS meaningless. Now this actually brings up a point which I meant to mention before:

And this is basically about awareness, and how I view awareness...

I do NOT KNOW what "awareness" is. I do not even know if I actually have awareness.

Just try to define awareness and see where it gets you. Good luck. So I don't know what awareness is, nor do I know if it is anything like it seems to be.

Sure, we can say awareness is consciousness... but then what is "consciousness"? Same problem. So I don't know.

I do know this: My apparent (to me) or perceived existence, is tied to my being what we call "aware" of it. But again, what IS this thing we call "aware"? I don't know.

But I also do know this: Things, events, life, people, and so on... is all happening. Something, something we generally call 'life' and the universe, is happening and is existing... meaning that we say we 'perceive' it to be happening.

But what is this happening? And what is this space where everything is apparently happening? Is this space "awareness"? That's what we say it is. But again, what IS awareness? And how do we know that there even is such a thing as "awareness"?

Like I said, all we kbow is that things seem to be happening. All during the course of our lives, something is happening. But are we really "aware"? Really? I don't know.

Maybe there is no such thing as awareness. Maybe all things are just happening and give the appearance or the illusion of there being awareness.

Maybe there is no actual thing as "awareness" at all. Maybe it's all just happening by itself, like some kind of dream without any dreamer. Maybe awareness is just part of the illusion of a reality, when in fact there is no awareness, nor is anyone actually "aware". Maybe it's just all just an mirage, an illusion that this thing we call "awareness" or "consciousness" actually exists at all.

Again, all we really know is what is happening in the moment. Is that "awareness"? I don't know. I only use the term awareness for lack of a better way to describe the space where existence is happening, is perceived. But "perceived" by whom? I don't know.

I only really know one thing: I am absolutely un-certain of anything.

Brian writes: "These are realities – awareness, existence, life. But they're not truths, not in any sort of scientific, logical, or evidentiary sense, because there is no untruth to which they can be contrasted."

-- There may be no opposite to compare or contrast to, but things like awareness and existence and life, are not not-true because of that. They are just words, but they refer to something which we all experience directly. We don't need to prove they exist by contrast. But like I said... what is awareness, existence, life? I don't know. They are just words, ideas, which refer to what is happening - to our experience of this 'happening'.

"Don't get me wrong: there's nothing more interesting to me than awareness, existence, and life. ... It's just that when I hear talk of "awareness never ends" it strikes me as no different in kind from "Jesus saves." Namely, a belief that can't be tested. At least, not in this life"

-- I agree. But just so you know... I never say, and I have never said (at least that I can remember), that "awareness never ends". I would not make such an assertion of certainty (if I did, then I retract it). Because I do NOT know. I only know, or I have an experience, that I am 'aware' now. And that I have had or been aware from the beginning of this life. Will this apparent "awareness" continue without end? I really don't know. Actually, I cannot know. No one can know for sure. They may believe, but they don't KNOW for sure, with certainty. Thats because "never ends" (ie: forever) is always and forever beyond the here and now, so we can never know or have eternal certainty.

"While I have a fondness for philosophies that assure me life is just fine exactly the way it is, and I don't need to do anything about it, I'm skeptical about whether there's any meaning to these assurances"

-- I am one of those who says that "life is just fine the way it is", BUT... I do NOT say that as an kind of "assurance" or as meaningful to or for others. It is meaningful to me, because that is my own conclusion born out of a lifetime of experience and contemplation. But it is NOT an "assurance" to you or to anyone else. I don't care whether you believe it or not. In fact, I would advise against any such belief. This is something which can only be known or felt or realized or concluded by oneself alone, and not any kind of philosophy.

"I also have heard that the world appears just the same to an enlightened sage as an unenlightened fool. So why not remain a fool if there's no way to tell the difference?"

-- There may be no difference. Or... there may be a vast difference that is simply not visible or apparent to the one who has not experienced both. A fool does not know if there is a difference, but a sage knows if there is a difference. But if there is a difference, then what is the difference? THAT is the question. But if there is a difference, perhaps there is no one remaining who can know the answer.

"In the end, there could well be no beginning and no end."

-- To me, it does not matter. I am not concerned with the beginning or the end. All I know is that I am apparently existing here now. So I just have to take it from here. I don't know how I got here, and I don't know whether I will continue to exist, or not continue to exist. And there is really nothing that I can do about that. So I just deal with what I do know, which is is that I am existing right here and right now.

"I'd be just as happy if metaphysical propositions could be proven to be true, rather than capable of being shown to be false. Sort of seems like the same difference to me..."

-- I too agree about the metaphysical propositions... but I don't see a need to prove that I am aware, that I exist, etc. I have ceased to look for any meaning in spiritual and metaphysical propositions. It holds no interest for me. All I really know is that I am aware (or at least that I appear to be aware) here and now.

For me, anything beyond that is all in the realm of all those unprovable propositions and theories and beliefs that you mentioned. All of that stuff is at best nothing more than mere mental speculation, which is all immediately rendered pointless and futile by the transitory nature of moment to moment existence.

[tucson]

Here is what I have found to be true. Stay with it and see if it elicits any clarity or leaves you scratching your head:

Presence is no thing: Absence is all.
Presence is appearance: Absence is the Source of everything.
Presence is what is not: Absence is what is.
For phenomenal absence is noumenal presence.
What I am is phenomenally absent: it is the phenomenal absence of My presence.
Every time I say 'I' Absence is speaking via presence.
I am Absolute Absence..absence of presence and of positivity.
Absolute Absence is absence of me.. of all my phenomenality.
So, I am the absence of my self and the presence of absence.
What I am is the absence of everything I appear to be and can think that I am.
What I am is the absence of all presence.We must be our own absence in order to manifest a spontaneous non-volitional presence.

We must be 'absent' in order that 'present' may be, but where we are and when we are is neither present nor absent, and what we are is neither presence nor absence, but the mutual negation of both. That is to say that neither concept is applicable, nor is any pronoun. Why? Because all words signify what is objective, and what we are has no objective quality and so cannot be objectified at all. Our knowable presence or absence can only be an objective, and so phenomenal, presence or absence, and therefore cannot be what we are. Noumenally, then, what we are is neither, but phenomenally regarded it can be conceived as the one or the other, but not both. By definition it must be absent, but it can be presence as appearance.

Huh? Say what? OK, here it is laid out in plain english..

THERE HAS NEVER BEEN AN OBJECTIVE BEING.

That is the only absolute truth there could ever be. Why? Because from that alone can perfect understanding arise. Nor is any other apprehension needed, because all comprehension lies therein.

The perfect understanding of that is perfect understanding itself. And that is because only non-objectivity itself can know it.

Ther is nothing more to be said, and ultimately nothing but that need ever have been said.

Knowing that, the rest is known.

The supposed or apparent mystery is due to the objective inexistence of pure non-objectivity which is the Buddha-nature, because objectivity is only conceptual and non-objectivity is incompatible with any degree of positivity. Hence, the expedience of the negative way.

So many people searching..searching for what? A self? But there isn't one! No such 'thing' exists, has ever existed, or ever could exist.

Why? Because it would need another to find the one. They are searching for themselves and how could anyone find himself?

It is This which is looking for Itself when we look for It, and we cannot find It because It is This which we are. And..objectively It is not here.

That is all there is in it.
That is the Big Joke.
And why it is a big joke!
And why there is nothing more
to be said.

P.S. These words may have meant very little to you. That I know well. In which case please accept my appologies. However, I also know that they could mean a very great deal indeed. In that case please do me the honor of accepting them.

God: "The universe is I and I am no 'where' to be found."

That's it.

[Edward]

My impression of this particular peeve is that Brian is assuming that intellectual laziness is defensible.

In our era, we know that advertizers sell the "sizzle not the steak" because that works to short circuit responses in consumers.

The tautology is a tool used in literary forensics in order to dismiss logical propositions. This tool was turned into a weapon in the late 19th century.

Many new readers are not as critical of the text they read, and will take the written word over the spoken as authoritative.

So the tautology most properly takes the full form: "It is what it is, until (or unless) it is not."

The weaponized version of the tautology drops the logical opposition, and purports to convey a limit. While emotionally appealing, it is laziness that allows the these statements to continue.

I am not a full bore mystic, and when I utter non-sequiters, my family simply rolls their collective and several eyes. "God is love," is a truncated tautology, and Eckhart could use this as a logical equation to jar his divinity students into thought: he was not selling greeting cards.

Consciousness is all, or it is not all: now we know that the author of that book had a proposition to explore, and didn't want to extend the length of the book by 50% in an examination of the propositions converse.

Which book, or post, or comment will be true? Per tucson, prior, you have dug into this book to find truth, and it is absent! Truth is everywhere.

Or truth is not everywhere.

Literary forensics, like an acrobatics show, is very middle-ages entertainment. Cirque de Soleil!

[Roger]

"The tautology is a tool used in literary forensics in order to dismiss logical propositions. This tool was turned into a weapon in the late 19th century."

---What was the weapon?

[Roger]

Rain,

"I believe reincarnation is the answer for what happens. Reincarnation (and that does not have to mean the exact Hindu, Buddhist or New Age views of it) gives us the greatest possible reason to make this life as effective as we can because if we do have to come back, we will literally reap what we have been sowing. But I don't 'know' that reincarnation is true."

---what is your understanding, as to what the meaning or origin of reincarnation is, that lies beyond Hinduism, Buddhism, and New Age views? Your above statement, sounds interesting.

[Brian]

tAo, nice comment. I better understand what you mean (or don't mean) by "awareness." And I resonate with what you said (or didn't say).

My basic point, which I made poorly in this post, because it's so tough to talk about what can't be talked about, is something like this:

We're all after truth, supposedly. (Well, most of us, at least.) We assume there is untruth that has to be shunned, discarded, risen above.

Yet most of us also are after oneness, love, unity, ultimacy. And in that, where is the room for two things: truth and untruth?

So this search, this craving, this intense desire for the capital "T" truth -- it could be the illusion that we're trying to escape.

Not an original idea, by no means. Mystics and philosophers of every variety have said that what we're looking for is so close to us, we can't see it.

I'm just starting to see what I can't see in a different light. Or so it seems. And that seeing was reflected, imperfectly, in this post.

[Tucson, just read your comment -- after writing this. So will add a "ditto." Good points. Again, what I'm seeing, albeit imperfectly, because my vision is so clouded, is along the lines of what you talked about.

We're addicted to the objective, because we believe it's what we really want and need. But we ignore the fact that our being, our essence, our everything, is necessarily "subjective."

Putting that word in quotes, because it's another example of a word that has no opposite, so doesn't really mean anything. Point to something that doesn't exist in "subjective" awareness/consciousness.

The finger points at nothing, as you said.]

P.S. to tAo, re. "improvable," I follow the great God Microsoft Word spell checker. As it commands, I obey (usually). I had "unprovable" and red squiggly lines under the word wouldn't go away until I acceded to Word's commandment to click on "improvable."

[RAM SINGH]

"The universe is I and I am no 'where' to be found."

NICE GRASSHOPPER!

I AM THERE WHEN I AM NOT THERE.

"YOU MAY NOW 'LEAVE' THE TEMPLE!"

YOU ARE VERY, VERY, FUNNY, MASTER

"YES, GRASSHOPPER, I THOUGHT YOU WOULD LIKE THE JOKE!"

LETS HAVE A CUP OF TEA MASTER.

"I WOULD LIKE THAT GRASSHOPPER."

[Stuart Resnick]

> if you hold to a metaphysical, spiritual,
> or religious belief, what would it take
> for you to admit, "I'm wrong"?

Zen style is to not hold anything. That means perceiving any sort of belief in the same way as we would a medicine, or a tool. We don't ask of, say, an antibiotic, "Is it True? Is it Right?" Rather, we ask what it does. We have a disease, we try to take the right medicine, and we see if it cures.

We don't ask of a hammer or saw whether it's True or Right. We apply it to the task at hand, and see what the results are.

Just so with ANY belief. We can already perceive Truth (the sky is blue, sugar is sweet, etc) without necessity of believing in anything. We're free to use a belief or idea in our efforts to remove suffering; using words and ideas is a different matter from holding words and ideas.

Say someone is attached to accummulating material possessions. An idea like "Everything is Truth, God, Awareness" could very well be effective medicine to remove this type of desire/suffering. On the other hand, if someone is attached to thinking and ideas, then "Everything is God" would be awful, merely giving him one more idea to hold.

Stuart
http://stuart-randomthoughts.blogspot.com/

[Brian]

Stuart, you still cite a falsifiability criterion: removal of desire/suffering. Or a similar task.

So the question still remains -- what would it take for a Zen practitioner to say, "This practice is wrong; it doesn't work."

I assume that if the practitioner practiced diligently, doing what he/she was supposed to, and didn't get the intended results, that would falsify Zen for him/her.

Otherwise, we'd be left in the old religious game: if you had believed more, or had better karma, or whatever, you would have gotten the results.

I don't see Zen as being exceptional or different in this regard. It's another spiritual practice, and should be tested in the same fashion as other practices. If this doesn't happen, it's just another faith based religion.

[tucson]

No tea for Ram Singh..

"I AM THERE WHEN I AM NOT THERE."

He is no 'where' at all.

The master sent him back to his sweeping.

[Rain]

My thoughts on reincarnation are just that no religion might have the truth of what it is. Being reborn in a new body with a soul that goes on could be true and none of the existing theories on what it means or how it works would have to necessarily also be true.

When I did regressions (one summer over 9 years ago now), my stories did seem to have a karmic connection that you could see how things were learned and used, how it applied to the next time; but I can't prove those stories (experienced under deep meditations) were anything but allegorical ways to help me see things about my life. I will say that for all the stories i have heard where everybody has these fantastic past life stories or was Cleopatra, mine were very ordinary people and many of them ended less than happily. My impression was that reincarnation wouldn't be for the fun of it but rather for the development of a soul to be all it could be through experiences that one lifetime alone could not have taught.

Having read many religious takes on reincarnation, I don't know what the truth of it would be... nor whether there even is a spiral of life that is lived again and again. I have known a lot of people who do know though... or so they believe.

[tAo]

Do not seek the truth...

... just drop your opinions.

http://www.dmt-nexus.com

[Stuart Resnick]

Brian wrote...
> I assume that if the practitioner
> practiced diligently, doing what he/she
> was supposed to, and didn't get the
> intended results, that would falsify Zen
> for him/her.

Here's the fundamental point: what results do you want? What is it that you're trying to get? For what, for who?

If you never take a break from chasing after desired results, then you never have a moment to examine, question, and inquire into your own desires.

> I don't see Zen as being exceptional or
> different in this regard. It's another
> spiritual practice, and should be tested
> in the same fashion as other practices.

Taking a clear look at "What do I want?" is a point, and it's got nothing to do with holding opinions about "Zen" or "religion" or anything else.

When you talk about "testing," I understand you to mean: "Does this practice get me the results I want?" In all sorts of different contexts, we're already familiar with the experience of striving after what we want, and what it's like to get or to not get. After becoming sufficiently exhausted from "I want to get something," a deeper and different questioning may appear, a simple "What is this??"

Stuart
http://stuart-randomthoughts.blogspot.com/

[Roger]

Rain,

You mentioned, in your above comment;

"When I did regressions (one summer over 9 years ago now), my stories did seem to have a karmic connection that you could see how things were learned and used, how it applied to the next time; but I can't prove those stories (experienced under deep meditations) were anything but allegorical ways to help me see things about my life."

---What do you mean by, "Regressions?"
If this area is of a private nature, feel free to say so. I'm curious as to what regressions are.
Thanks,
Roger