What Insights Have You Experienced?

[ardy]

I would love to end with a cliché but my limited brain won't allow me to write it! Gangnam Style!

I don't recall giving much attention to peer pressure. Turns out that I was once an unknowing cause of the phenomenon, and yet it exists.

Peerless. A = A. Having no equal other than oneself.

Realization of this, paradoxically, coincides with the appearance of equanimity (though paradoxes are merely logical fallacies).

Cahoot: Are you trying to make my little brain melt down? We are all herding animals and my view is very few are immune from peer pressure.

Your paradox goes to emphasise the stupidity of the illusion of equality. Nobody is equal to another and there is always someone smarter, better, faster or better looking than you are. Which is why we always assume we have failed at the end of our lives. We underestimate or overestimate our achievements in old age but it doesn't matter as the ennui swamps our ego.

When I was about 19 I did a little peer pressure experiment on some guys I knew in my local pub in the UK. They would talk over me and rarely listen to anything I said. I came to the conclusion that this was to do with my easy going nature. So I became very 'short' with them refusing their offers to buy a round with 'I'll buy my own drinks thanks!' and replied to any question about what I was up to, with statements like 'what has that got to do with you?''. Within a few weeks they were asking my advice on their silly lives and stopping to hear anything I said. Peer pressure? Anyone suffering from mild autism or a desire to control can generate it.

Always been amazed when I have reacted to peer pressure. I was thinking the other day about my hair and how I have it cut and how it has changed over time. Of course it is only due to peer pressure. Why do we all look the same? It is easy to be different but so few do. I console myself (fool myself?) with the spurious claim that it is inside my head where my difference lies....It's all lies....

[SeekerOfWisdom]

Were you 19 a long time ago? Because you still sound like you're 19.

[Russell Parr]

Have you ever read the secret by any chance? It's about a secret of every successful person on history of earth, the law of attraction states that thinking creates reality, so positive thinking attracts positive things like money, love and success.

I've seen it a while back when it was still popular. Even fell for it a little bit, having high hopes and dreams just a few years out of highschool. Watching a bit of it today, it's clear to me that it isn't much more than a glorified motivational video built upon some bogus egocentric mysticism.

As a christian mystic (if I correctly recall you proclaiming yourself to be), what value do things like "money, love and success" have in your life?

[Bobo]

It seems to have some roots in theosophy, they do some talk on the infinite, the all, but it is new age stuff. I don't remember saying that, I have some degree of interest in christianism as it appears to me as being closer to eastern religions than it is normally put out there. The idea of faith gives me some anxiety (which maybe is the point of having a leap of faith) and I usually resolve it grounding on the natural world, in this way I don't think I could be a christian. I have noticed that people tend to have poorly formed beliefs that end up acquiring exchange value as if it were money, maybe I could say that I value something more 'negative' like freedom.

[ardy]

Were you 19 a long time ago? Because you still sound like you're 19.

Gee! thanks SOW. I will treasure that one.

At least I have some experience to talk about. Have you spent your adult life interested in this stuff but doing nothing about it apart from think and talk? You know that actions are the only things that count in the end....Don't you?

[ardy]

It seems to have some roots in theosophy, they do some talk on the infinite, the all, but it is new age stuff. I don't remember saying that, I have some degree of interest in christianism as it appears to me as being closer to eastern religions than it is normally put out there. The idea of faith gives me some anxiety (which maybe is the point of having a leap of faith) and I usually resolve it grounding on the natural world, in this way I don't think I could be a christian. I have noticed that people tend to have poorly formed beliefs that end up acquiring exchange value as if it were money, maybe I could say that I value something more 'negative' like freedom.

Bobo: Freedom is what I and a few here are searching for. I don't see it as a 'negative' (Did you mean non-materialistic) action, to me it's what all this is about.

The true person is
Not anyone in particular;
But, like the deep blue color
Of the limitless sky,
It is everyone, everywhere in the world. Dogen

[Cahoot]

Do you also think that reality requires what it precedes in order to exist?

Once again, "Existence" doesn't apply to reality because it is infinite. Existence requires contrast, and you can't provide any contrasts to the Infinite because it necessarily includes whatever you might try to contrast it with. How many times has this been explained to you?

It seems that philosophy can only run so deep for you. Before it gets to the root, the bottom of things, you can't help but turn it into a scientific inquiry. This is a sign of attachment to the material world in which 'existence' has a more permanent meaning and feel to it. The ego loves such a thing.

The ego also loves the suffering called frustration. :)

Actually, it’s the offering of a doorway for you, or anyone, to expound upon concepts in any way you see fit, and appropriateness to situation is often advised for social situations, inasmuch as it provides fewer distractions for attention. Expository writing guided by rationality is the preferred method of the forum, and the advantage of this preference can be rationally proven beyond the limitations of belief although it’s not necessary to do so, as it is an agreed method, and it is the method used by most folks, which makes it mundane.

After asserting a number of times that reality is infinite, perhaps some reasoning to support that theory is in order? Or is the reasoning merely, faith?

Because, empirical evidence indicates that once the body dies, Fini. Last stop. End of the road. End of the line. Punch the ticket.

What’s the evidence of otherwise? (Turn the receiver dial away from the reception setting that marks this question as an assertion that the evidence does not exist.) (;

[Cahoot]

Were you 19 a long time ago? Because you still sound like you're 19.

Vision. Youth. Freshness. Vibrancy. Hope. Holding treasures of potential to be discovered. So many beautiful new experiences ahead ...

What a gift.

[JustinZijlstra]

If you have a thought of multiple steps.
Go from the end towards the beginning.
This is true leadership philosophy.
Roman law?

[Russell Parr]

The ego also loves the suffering called frustration. :)

Just trying to nudge you in the right direction.

Actually, it’s the offering of a doorway for you, or anyone, to expound upon concepts in any way you see fit, and appropriateness to situation is often advised for social situations, inasmuch as it provides fewer distractions for attention. Expository writing guided by rationality is the preferred method of the forum, and the advantage of this preference can be rationally proven beyond the limitations of belief although it’s not necessary to do so, as it is an agreed method, and it is the method used by most folks, which makes it mundane.

Yawn. I think you're here primarily for stimulating conversation instead of actual philosophy.

After asserting a number of times that reality is infinite, perhaps some reasoning to support that theory is in order? Or is the reasoning merely, faith?

I'm pretty dumbfounded that you've been here since '09 and have to ask something like this. The Totality, the All, Ultimate Reality.. what do these mean to you?

Because, empirical evidence indicates that once the body dies, Fini. Last stop. End of the road. End of the line. Punch the ticket.

What’s the evidence of otherwise? (Turn the receiver dial away from the reception setting that marks this question as an assertion that the evidence does not exist.) (;

The body dying? Empirical evidence? What do these have to do with.... nevermind.

[Russell Parr]

It seems to have some roots in theosophy, they do some talk on the infinite, the all, but it is new age stuff. I don't remember saying that, I have some degree of interest in christianism as it appears to me as being closer to eastern religions than it is normally put out there. The idea of faith gives me some anxiety (which maybe is the point of having a leap of faith) and I usually resolve it grounding on the natural world, in this way I don't think I could be a christian. I have noticed that people tend to have poorly formed beliefs that end up acquiring exchange value as if it were money, maybe I could say that I value something more 'negative' like freedom.

The phrase was 'christian philosopher'.

Yes, traditional Christians hang their beliefs on feelings alone, with comfort being the supreme goal, no matter the method. Hocus pocus, 'God did it', no rationality required. As long as enough people around them are doing it, they'll eat it up whole.

I agree on faith. It basically implies uncertainty. But there is a difference between blind faith and faith in reason. Blind faith means to be happy with uncertainty. Faith in reason means to rely on reason until you wipe out uncertainty. Faith in reason earns wisdom which in turn affords freedom from uncertainty.

[Cahoot]

If you have a thought of multiple steps.
Go from the end towards the beginning.
This is true leadership philosophy.
Roman law?

Don’t speak Roman, but it’s a method that is accord with reality because rational knowing of “the end” makes it into an energy thought form, and although ubiquitous energy does not suffer the confines of rationality, rationality can comprehend properties of energy. Knowing the limitations is important for understanding, and the assumption that awareness blocked by ignorance defines the limitations, is to be bound to rationality. Like the end, rationality is also a thought form of energy. And this has implications in regarding the aim of the forum as stated by The Founders, not The Seekers, as The Seekers used a musical method.

[Cahoot]

Philosophy is the search for truth. Someone will always be searching for truth, though the search need not be bound to what ego asserts is identity.

The body dying? Empirical evidence? What do these have to do with.... nevermind.

“Nevermind,” as in, “absence of mind”? For what is mind but thought, and what is thought but that which comes and goes, a form of energy, energy which not only can transform, but because perceived form is not ubiquitous, can be not present, in which case existence as you define it, is not, since awareness that you identify as you, exists only in relation to a person, place, thing, or thought … all forms of ubiquitous energy.

And if nevermind means give up, do you really think that ultimately you can, young Russell?

[Bobo]

> Freedom is what I and a few here are searching for. I don't see it as a 'negative' (Did you mean non-materialistic) action, to me it's what all this is about.

The word freedom has these meanings of an abstract non-materialistic thing or an infinite amount of something like the sky, I said negative too because I would expect lots of people to reject it or value other things more than it.

-
> The phrase was 'christian philosopher'.

I was talking of Augustine, my english no good.

[Cahoot]

Cahoot: Are you trying to make my little brain melt down? We are all herding animals and my view is very few are immune from peer pressure.

Herd, pack,
same principle
different form.

I ain’t no gangsta.

[ardy]

Cahoot: Are you trying to make my little brain melt down? We are all herding animals and my view is very few are immune from peer pressure.

Herd, pack,
same principle
different form.

I ain’t no gangsta.

Have to be, as your aim is better than any gangsta (urban dictionary).

[SeekerOfWisdom]

Edit

[Cahoot]

Because, empirical evidence indicates that once the body dies, Fini. Last stop. End of the road. End of the line. Punch the ticket.

What’s the evidence of otherwise? (Turn the receiver dial away from the reception setting that marks this question as an assertion that the evidence does not exist.) (;

For what is mind but thought, and what is thought but that which comes and goes, a form of energy, energy which not only can transform, but because perceived form is not ubiquitous, can be not present, in which case existence as you define it, is not, since awareness that you identify as you, exists only in relation to a person, place, thing, or thought … all forms of ubiquitous energy.

And if nevermind means give up, do you really think that ultimately you can, young Russell?

Wow, lol.

This is why I attempt to get people like you to make your points clear, for you are a dancer! You dance around assertions and speak vaguely and make jokes, because you are avoiding. Avoiding making any kind of assertion, because you are what, 80? And still have no sense of the truth! I find this hilarious.

Have fun seeing this quote over and over on the forum, because I'm not going to let anyone forget it, for their benefit and yours.

You are proof that age, and even time spent discussing philosophy, has absolutely no bearing on ones ability to reason or understand truth.

Just as Russell said, "....nevermind" . If you need some youngens to explain why you are still delusional, then ....nevermind.

Oops, had to edit this, forgot to add a " (; ".

(;

Ahh, that's better.

Actually, Whippersnapper, I’m a good bit younger than ardy. And, I have been giving this thread energy because of that. Out of respect that ardy has made it this far, and because he initiated the discussion. Not surprising that you don’t perceive this fact.

What you quoted, and obviously don’t understand, is logically consistent with the views put forth by both ardy, and Russell. This is because what you quoted, is truth, whether or not you have the capacity to understand it, as such.

Prove otherwise.

I’ve been giving this website energy out of respect, also.

Why do you participate, Seeker? I don’t see much wisdom seeking going on, from you. Just a bit of trash talking now and then. Which is cool when you back it up. But you haven’t, have you.

But I think you’ve got potential.

I do edit quite a bit, on the go, as it were. Words carry power, precision, and meaning. You try giving it a go, with that in mind. To put explaining in terms that a child would understand, you will find that explaining anything may feel like putting the Starship Enterprise in reverse, then changing the angle, then accelerating. In that sequence. But that's not the way it is, with explaining things. That would require the energy of untold galaxies for Starship speeds. Think of all the trees that could have been planted with that energy, and all the things done.

;) I kind of like the upward slant of the wink, after trying both angles out. And I have logical reasons for that preference.

[MisogynistDinosaur]

The self, as in the ego, exists, and is separate from the external.

The self, as in the totality, has no distinction from the external, in the sense that the brain and world are composed of the same stuff.
It is either all external (the brain and world imposing itself on the localized viewer), or "external/internal," nondefined (the brain and world just is, there is no localized viewer, solipism).

I believe there is a such thing as separation, in the consciousness realms, for example when you see things, it is completely distinct from the experience of hearing things.

Secondarily, the empirical method tells us that the brain is the primary structure, and the world is the secondary structure. Everything is filtered through the brain, and if the brain is damaged, the perception of the world is altered. Also, the ego does change, and people may have several egos, so a certain alter ego personality cannot be said to be the primary ego, since there is no free will, just a battling of thoughts, thoughts imposing them on you. So there could be multiple egos in your head, none are the real you, but some can be more dominant, and talk more often, so in that sense they could be said to be the primary ego, if your definition of primary is not what I implied at first.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

Edit

[MisogynistDinosaur]

Plus that woman hating dino above me would get the answer for free also. He hasn't done much for me.

Answer to what?

I do hate women, but one can be a misogynist without hating women.

Also, someone mentioned that logic is boring, but boring is just an emotion, characterized by high biological stress. If logic can be boring, then it could also be a love affair, since both are emotional states of attachment.

Freedom is a false concept, similar to the false concept of free-will, or the notion of a self separate from the external.
Freedom can be defined as a self which is not limited by its external environment, and yet can also alter its external environment, and or alter itself, gaining power hinging around an invisible axis. Therefore the degree of separation is imposed. It is a false concept.

However, there is a freedom in a non-literal sense - the freedom to read books, or speak your mind, for instance.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

Edit

[MisogynistDinosaur]

Hi there dino,

Cahoot wrote: "Because, empirical evidence indicates that once the body dies, Fini. Last stop. End of the road. End of the line. Punch the ticket."

Plus he wrote:

"What you quoted, and obviously don’t understand, is logically consistent with the views put forth by both ardy, and Russell. This is because what you quoted, is truth, whether or not you have the capacity to understand it, as such.

Prove otherwise."

My answer to that.

I don't believe one can die, only the self can die. The localized viewer cannot die, because if there are no external objects causing contrast, there is no sense of time, consciousness or experience. So the only way to die is to remove all things.

However, if one has a solipsistic view, that the empirical universe is only inherent to the Totality, that the universe has no permanence, one might assume that if the body dies, the Totality dies too. Still you are left with problem, the impossibility of experiencing nothing, though.

[Cahoot]

Hi there dino,

Cahoot wrote: "Because, empirical evidence indicates that once the body dies, Fini. Last stop. End of the road. End of the line. Punch the ticket."

Plus he wrote:

"What you quoted, and obviously don’t understand, is logically consistent with the views put forth by both ardy, and Russell. This is because what you quoted, is truth, whether or not you have the capacity to understand it, as such.

Prove otherwise."

My answer to that.

Not only must you pay attention, you must be honest, Whippersnapper. That is, if you have any concern for truth.

Because, empirical evidence indicates that once the body dies, Fini. Last stop. End of the road. End of the line. Punch the ticket.

What’s the evidence of otherwise? (Turn the receiver dial away from the reception setting that marks this question as an assertion that the evidence does not exist.) (;

So, what's the evidence? You haven't addressed it, neither has Russell. Other than with a bit of emotional indignation. Or is that also an irrelevant question. :)

I, on the other hand, have.

Like I said, pay attention. Keep your eyes open. Be honest.

The fact that one must kept alert for such dishonesty is tedious. It's not even misunderstanding, and it's deliberate. Tedious, and untrue, for logical reasons.

[Bobo]

I do hate women, but one can be a misogynist without hating women.

Misoginy means hatred of women, one can be hateful toward others without having the feelings hate, so one cannot be a mysogynist without hatred by definition it is just that hate and other emotions can be a learned behaviour that usually prejudices rationality.