Why study philosophy?

Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Why study philosophy?

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Serendipper wrote: Sun Jan 07, 2018 8:37 pm
Keats was no philosopher but a Romantic poet of course. Basically believing "what imagination seizes as Beauty must be truth". To me that would say the sensitive soul had no stomach for anything philosophical.
I'm not sure... intelligence implies sensitivity.
True just as philosophy implies a strong stomach to digest all the implications. The artist takes a different route, almost escapes.
I think it's less important to speculate on what causes us to experience fun and more important to illustrate that the goal of the impulse is irrelevant to furthering illusions of yourself (ie the ego); that is the distinction.
But that depends on the notion that such impulse is not actually part of the furthering of illusion. Which has not been established yet so I would not build an argument around it either.
Clearly defined by whom? Any definition of philosophy (or any word) is arbitrary and subjective. Didn't you say, "what imagination seizes as Beauty must be truth"? Seems subjective to me.
No that was Keats and you brought Keats to the table. The quoted statement was given to demonstrate how Keats viewed truth, more as a poet and rather simplistic sounding.
In order to have a meaningful discussion, or better exchange of ideas, it would seem our imaginations must be first aligned or we may as well be speaking different languages.
How to align? Just soak long enough in the same broth perhaps? Just follow my footsteps then :-)
If philosophy leads to a higher goal, then what does that get you? "The king and the pawn go in the same box after the game." (google it)
When the pawn promotes in the game, as some say the true goal of the game is, where does the new piece comes from?
Fun is the motivation proposed for the explanation of why anyone would want to work in a money-less society. And even now, many folks work, not for the money, but because they like what they do; it's fun.
Some say it's more like "character" that explains "noble action". But it's awfully vague - as well.
We sacrifice some of the whisky in order to have better flavor because it's more fun and interesting to perceive new subtleties as opposed to the nurturing of an impulse to irrationally hoard while simultaneously drowning in plenty ... So, the sacrifice isn't a tool to use to get ahead in the world, though often perverted for that end, but is a means to an interesting (or fun) time.
That's also how Freud described the Ego principle. Delayed gratification in return for future potential benefits amongst other things. But it clearly does not mean always benefits for ones own being. It depends I guess where one sees ones self in: family, tribe, humanity or God, duty, heaven. All kinds of things people seem to have sacrificed for. Or just used as escape hatch from life suffering and wrapped a sacrificial veil around it. Happens too!
Serendipper
Posts: 136
Joined: Wed Jan 18, 2017 12:43 pm

Re: Why study philosophy?

Post by Serendipper »

Good to see you Diebert! This bantering is fun to the mental like ping pong to the martial :)
Diebert van Rhijn wrote: Sun Jan 14, 2018 10:10 pm
Serendipper wrote: Sun Jan 07, 2018 8:37 pm
Keats was no philosopher but a Romantic poet of course. Basically believing "what imagination seizes as Beauty must be truth". To me that would say the sensitive soul had no stomach for anything philosophical.
I'm not sure... intelligence implies sensitivity.
True just as philosophy implies a strong stomach to digest all the implications. The artist takes a different route, almost escapes.
Hmm... I think requiring a strong stomach is relative to perspective. I'm reminded of a healthcare worker who had to break from his lunch to clean a nasty mess who then promptly returned to eating his burrito. I said, "Regardless what you're getting paid, you deserve a raise!"

I'm not sure what it means to have a strong stomach. Surely being numb can cause a strong stomach, but is it necessary? I can't say for certain and it would seem a put-down to the man cleaning the mess that he is in some way less sensitive.

But, what I mean by "intelligence implying sensitivity" is, bluntly, being better-connected to the world and, consequently, being able to perceive what others cannot, which may or may not cause pain. That realization came about after observing suicide statistics. It doesn't matter which stat we choose from the multitude that are available, being smart puts a person at risk for suicide and all I can conclude from that is an increase in sensitivity (perception) which causes pain.

Someone said, "A little bit of knowledge is dangerous." If we're smart enough to perceive what most cannot and find some truth to be painful, that pain may mean we do not have the full picture. At least we're smart enough to see what is there, but unfortunately, we're not smart enough to see yet farther through the fog in order to realize that it's not so bad after all. Therefore, a little bit of knowledge is dangerous.
I think it's less important to speculate on what causes us to experience fun and more important to illustrate that the goal of the impulse is irrelevant to furthering illusions of yourself (ie the ego); that is the distinction.
But that depends on the notion that such impulse is not actually part of the furthering of illusion. Which has not been established yet so I would not build an argument around it either.
I see what you're saying. Well, it is assumed that what is done for fun is not for the purpose of improving oneself. If we play so that we can work better later, then we're not playing. Playing is not teleological... it has no goal. It's mindless, purposeless, innate and embodies the "becoming one with the universe". Geese flying over a lake do not intend to cast their reflection and the lake has no mind to retain the image. Birds don't sing for the advancement of music, but if a bird sings, it can only be because it enjoys singing since it has no obvious neurological mechanism to be teleological. If we conclude that birds are endeavoring to "be better", then we've turned natural selection on its head.
Clearly defined by whom? Any definition of philosophy (or any word) is arbitrary and subjective. Didn't you say, "what imagination seizes as Beauty must be truth"? Seems subjective to me.
No that was Keats and you brought Keats to the table. The quoted statement was given to demonstrate how Keats viewed truth, more as a poet and rather simplistic sounding.
Haha, well, a proverb is no proverb until life has illustrated it ;) Obviously you resonated with it at least a little. But I concede your distinction that it's Keats' claim that definitions are subjective and now have to ask if you agree or disagree and why.
In order to have a meaningful discussion, or better exchange of ideas, it would seem our imaginations must be first aligned or we may as well be speaking different languages.
How to align? Just soak long enough in the same broth perhaps? Just follow my footsteps then :-)
I suddenly got an image of wooden shoes :p I don't know... muddle along I suppose. Ask for clarification more often, especially about certain keywords such as: god, universe, everything, good, evil, meaning, existence, consciousness, etc. It's just the benefit of my experience which has taught me to first be sure I know what the other person is trying to say.
If philosophy leads to a higher goal, then what does that get you? "The king and the pawn go in the same box after the game." (google it)
When the pawn promotes in the game, as some say the true goal of the game is, where does the new piece comes from?
Perseverance ;)
Fun is the motivation proposed for the explanation of why anyone would want to work in a money-less society. And even now, many folks work, not for the money, but because they like what they do; it's fun.
Some say it's more like "character" that explains "noble action". But it's awfully vague - as well.
As in diligently doing difficult duties for a greater good? Who can be trusted more to perform the task: The gentleman who helps little old ladies across the street because he enjoys it or the one who does so because it's his duty? I still have no definitive answer to that one. The one who enjoys it may decide it's no longer fun and the other one may decide it's no longer his duty or he has met is his quota.

Would you trust me more if I believed watching you succeed were fun or if I believed it was my duty to help you?

What about the yetzer hara? The element of irreducible rascality. Can any man be 100% honorable? Maybe I'm honorable, but found it was fun to trip you up sometimes for kicks because, in the end, there is no reward for honor.

Suppose we engineer some microbes to eat up all the nasty pollutants on earth. Do we trust them to do their job because they have a sense of duty or because they simply enjoy eating stuff? Are you trusted to be moderator because of your sense of duty or because you enjoy it?

One more thought experiment: Let's suppose there is a heaven and you're standing outside the pearly gates. Why should god let you in? If you think you're entitled to enter, then that pride will keep you out. So how do you get in? All I have been able to come up with is "Hey it looks like fun in there!"

At the same time came the disciples unto Jesus, saying, Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven? And Jesus called a little child unto him, and set him in the midst of them, and said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.

Kids have no concept of entitlement, but do what is fun and for innocent reasons (ie they don't have fun for a reason).

That realization came after reading The Sly Man and the Devil

It's pride and sense of entitlement that keeps the folks from heaven. It's mirrored in the Eastern teaching that desire for enlightenment is all that prevents one from obtaining it.

M - We're always trying to find a way to be one-up.
S - So how do I not do that?
M - Why do you want to know?
S - Well, I'd be better that way.
M - Yeah but why do you want to be better? You see, the reason you want to be better is the reason why you aren't.
We sacrifice some of the whisky in order to have better flavor because it's more fun and interesting to perceive new subtleties as opposed to the nurturing of an impulse to irrationally hoard while simultaneously drowning in plenty ... So, the sacrifice isn't a tool to use to get ahead in the world, though often perverted for that end, but is a means to an interesting (or fun) time.
That's also how Freud described the Ego principle. Delayed gratification in return for future potential benefits amongst other things. But it clearly does not mean always benefits for ones own being. It depends I guess where one sees ones self in: family, tribe, humanity or God, duty, heaven. All kinds of things people seem to have sacrificed for. Or just used as escape hatch from life suffering and wrapped a sacrificial veil around it. Happens too!
Yep, sure, sacrifice can be perverted to benefit the ego. I think all I was trying to show is that it doesn't have to be.
Glostik91
Posts: 347
Joined: Sun Jun 28, 2009 6:13 am
Location: Iowa

Re: Why study philosophy?

Post by Glostik91 »

I've been putting off responding to this because I find it so utterly obvious that there is no point, however I have been drinking a bit and I am going to foolishly respond to you.
Is anyone here good at explaining why we should care about philosophy to someone who knows nothing at all about it? No idea about enlightenment, metaphysics, ultimate reality, or anything like that?
Basically I'm just going to ask you this. If I say, yes, I am good at explaining, and some sort of blither blather about the fundamentals of human intuition and understanding comes splattering out of my mouth, how precisely are you to verify anything I am saying is true? If you are capable of verifying if what I say is true, then how do you not already know the truth? Just know it.
a gutter rat looking at stars
Serendipper
Posts: 136
Joined: Wed Jan 18, 2017 12:43 pm

Re: Why study philosophy?

Post by Serendipper »

Glostik91 wrote: Wed Jan 17, 2018 4:48 pm I've been putting off responding to this because I find it so utterly obvious that there is no point, however I have been drinking a bit and I am going to foolishly respond to you.
Haha you should drink more if it makes you post more :) So, do you mean "foolishly respond" because you feel you're wasting your time or because you intend to speak foolishly? I'm kidding!

This is a good observation:
If I say, yes, I am good at explaining, and some sort of blither blather about the fundamentals of human intuition and understanding comes splattering out of my mouth, how precisely are you to verify anything I am saying is true? If you are capable of verifying if what I say is true, then how do you not already know the truth? Just know it.
Let me paraphrase:

If some sort of blither blather about yada yada comes splattering out of Nietzsche's pen, how precisely are you to verify anything he says is true? If you are capable of verifying if what he says is true, then how do you not already know the truth?

Seems true to me, so I don't need Nietzsche, but may enjoy him sometimes.

I suspect this may have been Bill Maher's reasoning for not reading books when Ann Coulter tried pushing him to read more by saying, "Just think how much smarter you'd be!" Ann adores reading and devours books, but Bill may be more of a pioneer in thought. Reading should be done for enjoyment; if you don't enjoy it, don't do it.
User avatar
Matt Gregory
Posts: 1537
Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2005 11:40 am
Location: United States

Re: Why study philosophy?

Post by Matt Gregory »

Diebert van Rhijn wrote: Sun Oct 22, 2017 7:23 pm
Matt Gregory wrote: Sat Oct 21, 2017 10:09 am
Diebert van Rhijn wrote: Mon Oct 16, 2017 6:22 am So you are asking to be explained why you should explain your self to people who cannot explain themselves?
Are you being snarky or something? I'm asking just what I said.
No. Perhaps you are not aware what you are asking here? You were literally asking how or why you should explain your self to people who haven't even started to explain to themselves. It's a catch 22 and bordering on being a pointless question unless you just want to strike up a conversation here or something.
I dropped the ball on this one because for some reason I interpreted you to mean we shouldn't strike up a casual conversation here and because you're basically the moderator, I didn't feel it was worth fighting an anti-conversation sentiment. But being the Genius Forum addict that I am, I always come back! I re-read it and realized I was just being paranoid. I apologize for misunderstanding you. I think I just get overwhelmed trying to read and reply to all the posts I get on this forum. I find most everyone on here to be very complex and hard to understand, but I try to give every post my best effort.

As for being snarky, isn't it all about striking a match? Or do you prefer boring, clinical, comfortable comments? In that case you should rethink your approach here as well as with others.
No, definitely not. I have NO desire to suggest you communicate in any way other than the way you see fit.

I'm not trying to be a teacher. I'm just trying to have a stimulating conversation. No big deal, I just thought you guys might have some pointers.
If you're trying please consider that you're not a stimulating conversationalist. And you don't need to become one. My point is that the nature of wisdom is that it will not be obscured for those looking for it. Just do what you are, say what you are.

Your original question was "why we should care about philosophy to someone who knows nothing at all" and the problem of "explaining all this abstract stuff to people". The best answer you're probably going to receive here is to completely abandon that line of questioning. It's pretty much self-contradicting and almost implies some kind of weird evangelical outlook on wisdom. If you're really serious about lighting a fire, don't worry about passing the flames along. The nature of fire itself will take care of it. If you're in doubt, study the nature of this fire more closely. Or in other words, do some philosophy beyond what you've been doing already before worrying passing anything along at all.
Yes, I think you're absolutely right (well, except for self-contradicting part), but passing things on was not the reason I asked the question. I asked the question because I've found that talking to people stimulates my mind and motivates me. I just need to get out more, I guess. Or, more likely, just forget the whole thing.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Why study philosophy?

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Hi Matt glad you came back!
Matt Gregory wrote: Tue Jun 12, 2018 1:07 pmI think I just get overwhelmed trying to read and reply to all the posts I get on this forum. I find most everyone on here to be very complex and hard to understand, but I try to give every post my best effort.
And you seem to have a concern about the exact same thing in others elsewhere "where I'm trying to explain all this abstract stuff to people". That they'd find it very complex and hard to understand. But when I try to understand this and look at my own experiences, I must admit the thought never crossed my mind since it's more like a given. You could say I never expected others to understand what I think or feel beyond the mundane. And that there's only a best effort indeed. But I do relate to the overwhelming part but I solved that by deciding I don't have to read everything or respond to anything if I don't feel driven at a given moment. In the end we write to ourselves to explain ourselves in our own eyes.
passing things on was not the reason I asked the question. I asked the question because I've found that talking to people stimulates my mind and motivates me. I just need to get out more, I guess. Or, more likely, just forget the whole thing.
It's understood that talking to people stimulates your mind and motivates you. But it's not clear to me why that has to be about enlightenment, metaphysics and ultimate reality in the sense of the abstract. And it's not even abstract as you can simply apply your own grasp of enlightenment and reality with every other stimulating topic. And there are so many! Someone mentioned politics but it can be simple: humor, psychology, pure fictional speculation, animal behavior etc. If these topics or whatever might peek your interest cannot be turned into interesting conversation topics which stimulate your mind, then it's time to ask a whole other question: how real is enlightenment for you beyond being a conversation topic or as a collection of thoughts being ordered in the mind?

In the end though, please bear in mind that you have nothing to give. The truth will take a lot away and nobody is interested in that no matter how everything could be gained. Hence "why study philosophy" -- because you can't help it?
User avatar
Matt Gregory
Posts: 1537
Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2005 11:40 am
Location: United States

Re: Why study philosophy?

Post by Matt Gregory »

Diebert van Rhijn wrote: Tue Jun 12, 2018 4:04 pm Hi Matt glad you came back!
Thanks Diebert! Glad you're still around.
Matt Gregory wrote: Tue Jun 12, 2018 1:07 pmI think I just get overwhelmed trying to read and reply to all the posts I get on this forum. I find most everyone on here to be very complex and hard to understand, but I try to give every post my best effort.
And you seem to have a concern about the exact same thing in others elsewhere "where I'm trying to explain all this abstract stuff to people". That they'd find it very complex and hard to understand.
It's more like what I'm trying to discuss is so simple and elementary that the significance of it is lost on them. When I try to correct for it, I suppose it turns complex.
But when I try to understand this and look at my own experiences, I must admit the thought never crossed my mind since it's more like a given. You could say I never expected others to understand what I think or feel beyond the mundane. And that there's only a best effort indeed. But I do relate to the overwhelming part but I solved that by deciding I don't have to read everything or respond to anything if I don't feel driven at a given moment. In the end we write to ourselves to explain ourselves in our own eyes.

passing things on was not the reason I asked the question. I asked the question because I've found that talking to people stimulates my mind and motivates me. I just need to get out more, I guess. Or, more likely, just forget the whole thing.
It's understood that talking to people stimulates your mind and motivates you. But it's not clear to me why that has to be about enlightenment, metaphysics and ultimate reality in the sense of the abstract.
Yeah, I'm not being honest with myself. I don't believe evangelizing wisdom is the right thing for me to do, but when I think on past conversations I've had, it's clear to me that I AM trying to evangelize it. When I talk to younger men at the bar who are depressed or religious, I'll get into it and try and explain what I've been through because that's kind of where I came from. I might not be enlightened, but I'm in a good place where I don't suffer mentally anymore. At least not profoundly.

And it's not even abstract as you can simply apply your own grasp of enlightenment and reality with every other stimulating topic. And there are so many! Someone mentioned politics but it can be simple: humor, psychology, pure fictional speculation, animal behavior etc. If these topics or whatever might peek your interest cannot be turned into interesting conversation topics which stimulate your mind, then it's time to ask a whole other question: how real is enlightenment for you beyond being a conversation topic or as a collection of thoughts being ordered in the mind?
I think it would help if I had more education about culture. I'm actually going to start a thread on this. I'd like to revive this forum somehow. I really miss the good old days when it was active and dramatic. I think it was actually the best when we had crazy men trying to stop the evil QRS and their horde of mindless syncophants :D

In the end though, please bear in mind that you have nothing to give. The truth will take a lot away and nobody is interested in that no matter how everything could be gained. Hence "why study philosophy" -- because you can't help it?
If I may be allowed to pontificate: Time strips all things bare, so the truth will always catch up with you. We just ought to be aware of it so we're not caught off guard. Well, that's not a very idealistic platitude, but at least anyone can grasp it.

I think I'm done with this topic. I don't know what it is about this forum that makes me want to brood, but I need to give it a rest :)
User avatar
Santiago Odo
Posts: 506
Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2017 1:26 am
Location: Dark Void

Re: Why study philosophy?

Post by Santiago Odo »

I think it was actually the best when we had crazy men trying to stop the evil QRS and their horde of mindless sycophants :D
That work has been completed to 100%. They are no longer a threat to themselves nor to anyone else. The sycophants were laid in their graves long ago. Deflated, they might now be selling used cars or collecting baseball cards ...

The Two Ds sank into sheer irrelevancy. Personally, I still hold out hope for Commander Kevin ...

Now, the task that remains is to restructure completely the entire program. To think it through again. We must do this without resorting to Energy Drinks.

We thank them heartily, yet we forge ahead having received the torch from the Fallen Ones.
Time strips all things bare, so the truth will always catch up with you.
Nicely put.

Yours truly,

Alex
You I'll never leave
Pam Seeback
Posts: 2619
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: Why study philosophy?

Post by Pam Seeback »

Matt GregoryI think it was actually the best when we had crazy men trying to stop the evil QRS and their horde of mindless sycophants :D
Santiago Odo: That work has been completed to 100%. They are no longer a threat to themselves nor to anyone else. The sycophants were laid in their graves long ago. Deflated, they might now be selling used cars or collecting baseball cards ...
A perfect example of egos that use adjectives and adverbs as if they are anything more than subjective farts in the wind. The truth is that no one knows why the founders of this forum are silent, not even the founders themselves. Just as no one knows the character of the members, not even the members themselves. Sorry if the truth feels like like that dreaded 'place' called nihilism Alex, but truth is truth.

What a strange concept, to only say those things that one absolutely knows to be true.
User avatar
Santiago Odo
Posts: 506
Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2017 1:26 am
Location: Dark Void

Re: Why study philosophy?

Post by Santiago Odo »

I think you might have missed the note of sardonic humor deliberately infused in that post. Alex has a fairly evil reputation to uphold.
You I'll never leave
User avatar
Matt Gregory
Posts: 1537
Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2005 11:40 am
Location: United States

Re: Why study philosophy?

Post by Matt Gregory »

Santiago Odo wrote: Fri Jun 15, 2018 3:21 am
I think it was actually the best when we had crazy men trying to stop the evil QRS and their horde of mindless sycophants :D
That work has been completed to 100%. They are no longer a threat to themselves nor to anyone else.
Nooooo......They saaaayyyyy they're out there.......out in those very woods.......waiting......
Pam Seeback
Posts: 2619
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: Why study philosophy?

Post by Pam Seeback »

Santiago Odo wrote: Fri Jun 15, 2018 9:02 am I think you might have missed the note of sardonic humor deliberately infused in that post. Alex has a fairly evil reputation to uphold.
An attempt at humor aside, what is ironic about your blasting of the founders of the forum is that your desire to find and make known a metaphysic to save the world from the nihilism of relativity is just as much an example of human reasoning as any of the posts of David, Dan and Kevin. Note I said 'example' because obviously, your reasoning and their reasoning profess different goals. But that doesn't change the truth - here's that tough word again - that anything you profess as a metaphysic will always be Alex's reasoned metaphysic, just as Jack or Jill's metaphysic will always be Jack or Jill's reasoned metaphysic. Reasoning is not truth, and that is the whole point of waking up or becoming enlightened, to know the difference between reasoning and truth telling. Back to when you mentioned Grace in relation to the path of the Christian mystic - Grace is a word that cannot stand alone and mean anything, In order to mean something, it must come to mind in relation to other words, and as soon as that relationship is established, meaning is established and this meaning is subjective, not objective.

Let's look at the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Try for a moment to isolate 'good' as if an absolute word from God and at the same time, tell something what 'good' means in absolute terms. Impossible. This is why the tree of knowledge is called 'good AND evil.' You allude to the truth that man is subject to thinking in terms of reasoning above when you said 'Alex has a FAIRLY evil reputation to uphold.' Alex cannot be absolutely evil any more than Alex can be absolutely good.

You are looking at someone who, for decades, searched for an absolute metaphysic to share with the world to save it from its prison of relativity (as I believed relativity to be) - this, I believe, is the intent, whether conscious or not, of all 'mystics'. I also believe it is the same drive in all who call themselves philosophers or spiritualists. And so intense was this search for the absolute template of God that the obvious truth that human thought is always relational escaped me again and again. And just as I didn't believe others when they told me that the absolute 'void' of things cannot be known, I believe your intense search to reveal the Word of God is blinding you to the same truth. This truth is alluded to here: "Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live." To come to the Silence of the absolute God is all man can experience of Him/It. Is this nihilism to see the truth that man thinks via reasoning and not in absolute terms? Perhaps on the surface, yes, it appears as such, but is it not liberating to realize that man can let go of his belief that good and evil are absolute things or objects or words? Is this not why he suffers under the weight of his pride and shame?

I believe you are one of the most passionate seekers of God I have encountered. Perhaps you above all other men will successfully show us, via thought, the ultimate and absolute face of God. It hasn't happened yet, but who knows, give us your fire and we'll set what the ashes reveal. :-)
User avatar
Santiago Odo
Posts: 506
Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2017 1:26 am
Location: Dark Void

Re: Why study philosophy?

Post by Santiago Odo »

“Pam” wrote:An attempt at humor aside, what is ironic about your blasting of the founders of the forum is that your desire to find and make known a metaphysic to save the world from the nihilism of relativity is just as much an example of human reasoning as any of the posts of David, Dan and Kevin.
It is important to understand a difference between what you mean when you say *blasting* and what I mean by what I do, here now, and also in the past (and now and the past are significantly different, yet related).

As I said down there in ‘the lower zone’, my thrust is to suggest that a specific European renovation is necessary. Therefor, I am not speaking to some universalist plan for world peace or human betterment. I am directing my focus to Europe. This in itself is somewhat radical given the indoctrinations we have lived through in a world taken by such universalizing models. Because I have been involved in this study for some time now, yes, I have a good deal to say about it. I would suggest if you can making an effort to at least understand what I am presenting and why. I do not think you grasp it. But then I notice that you tend only to post in relation to a very very specific field of interest. I will leave you to provide the defining term — for what your project is — I confess I do not understand it at. But when I say I do not understand it that is not quite right. Suffice to say (as I have) that I can find no argument against your personal devotion to mystical revelation. But in the case of our Beloved Founders, and also I suspect in your case, your project, to me, to my perception of it, smacks of *nihilism*. Just a word and a loaded word that requires explication but the one I have chosen to use. Others can be found.

I very definitely ‘blast’ the DD&K and I clearly articulate why this is. But simultaneously I also praise their willpower and their intention to set a reform-project in motion. This shows not so much a contradiction but more that I see great value in what they began but also that I understand that it was (it is) incomplete, skewed, and that it breaks continuity with our own European traditions. I am sorry to repeat the term. It is an involved topic and I certainly have made an effort to describe what I mean.

However, you seem to understand nothing of this, as numerous others seem to understand nothing. I have also written about that : why this is, and what the cure for it is (or might be).
Note I said 'example' because obviously, your reasoning and their reasoning profess different goals.
If you give an indication that you have even a sense of what my *recommended goals* are, we might have a better chance at communication. Over the years I have noticed time and time again that we do not seem to exist on the same planet . . . ;-P
But that doesn't change the truth - here's that tough word again - that anything you profess as a metaphysic will always be Alex's reasoned metaphysic.
What you say here, I will suggest, indicates that you have limited understanding of what I am trying to speak about when I use the word ‘metaphysic’. You indicate that you see it is *subjective* : a choice I am making. Something personal. And I suggest to you that if we were to well define an Occidental Metaphysics it would be the metaphyscs that has, shall I say, ruled or dominated European processes. It is not *mine* and it is not a choice or a momentary whim. It connects with *what has made us us* and to the structure of our very selves. We arise out of that metaphysics. It is not cloudy and vague, but rather precise and definite. It is not anything or all things but rather very specific things. For you (that is, Pam) to get more clear about what is being talked about would likely require some more specific study and discipline.
... and that is the whole point of waking up or becoming enlightened, to know the difference between reasoning and truth telling.
Enlightenment is a false-concept. It is a trick that is perpetrated on and against those who use it. In my view, the fact of you using it more or less discredits your thrust. If one is to speak, gingerly, of ‘enlightenment’ one can only speak in terms of ‘enlightened attitude’ or a mental and spiritual area of realization. That comes out of the metaphysics one lives from and it leads to a life-lived within a specific context. I might be able to work with the *waking up* metaphor though. Waking up from what and to what?

Be specific!

The error of our Founders, again in my view, is to have made the mistake — a very severe one — of imagining that with limited understanding and limited knowledge that they could define Truth. This became for them a fool’s game and led to wasted effort and ... irrelevancy. They do not know anything — even remotely — about *truth*. Truth is discovered within a social and cultural context : our context. It is expressed in *our traditions* and through *our achievements* and does not exist as an abstract noun (that is how you, and they, use the term).
Back to when you mentioned Grace in relation to the path of the Christian mystic - Grace is a word that cannot stand alone and mean anything, In order to mean something, it must come to mind in relation to other words, and as soon as that relationship is established, meaning is established and this meaning is subjective, not objective.
If I use the term Grace it is to indicate a state differing from a self-willed and self-achieved ‘enlightenment’ which is what I understand of David’s use of that perverse term. To speak of Grace implies something bestowed, if you will, and it implies entering a current that exists. Neither D nor D nor K could ever have spoken in such a way. This is an important element in understanding them.

But I definitely agree with you that Grace obviously connects to specifically Christian traditions (and perhaps to no other). And it is true it cannot stand alone, and does not stand alone : it is fully related to a range of what are termed ‘sacraments’ and they are inter-connecred. But the *meaning* in the word, and in the outcome (the state) is not subjective in the sense you seem to mean. It is quite the opposite.
You are looking at someone who, for decades, searched for an absolute metaphysic to share with the world to save it from its prison of relativity (as I believed relativity to be) - this, I believe, is the intent, whether conscious or not, of all 'mystics'. I also believe it is the same drive in all who call themselves philosophers or spiritualists. And so intense was this search for the absolute template of God that the obvious truth that human thought is always relational escaped me again and again. And just as I didn't believe others when they told me that the absolute 'void' of things cannot be known, I believe your intense search to reveal the Word of God is blinding you to the same truth. This truth is alluded to here: "Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live." To come to the Silence of the absolute God is all man can experience of Him/It. Is this nihilism to see the truth that man thinks via reasoning and not in absolute terms? Perhaps on the surface, yes, it appears as such, but is it not liberating to realize that man can let go of his belief that good and evil are absolute things or objects or words? Is this not why he suffers under the weight of his pride and shame?
In the past, when the conversation has moved to this point, I have politely withdrawn but left you with a blessing (so to speak). What you are involved in and why you are involved in it quite literally makes no sense to me. To put it another way, my focus is in very different things. To respond to this is to indulge myself in psycho-babble, and so I politely refrain. It is simply a question of different area of focus.

It is imperative that we — European men — do not lose our connection with ourselves, with our traditions, and with a long and important historical trajectory. If *return* is possible it will happen through a process of reclamation. I describe this as ‘returning to our Greco-Christian roots’ but there are a dozen ways to describe it. It is paideia in the best and most essential sense. If you wish to understand better, I can explain. But I don’t think the topic interests you much.
You I'll never leave
Pam Seeback
Posts: 2619
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: Why study philosophy?

Post by Pam Seeback »

Your desire to cling to your European traditions is the antithesis to experiencing the self on the deepest ontological level where concepts are secondary, not primary. There is no growth or expansion when the conceptual self refuses to release its grip on the familiar, and concepts that define the self are always the safe and familiar. There is no genius in the familiarity of the thought - patterned self, genius used in this sense of being willing to be awake and open to experience in every moment. The open(ed) self is in the world but not of the world, the essential message of Jesus' teachings, but because you love the tradition of Christianity, not the spirit of Christ's words, I believe you are deaf to what he was saying.

You provide me with high contrast to my desire to free the world from its clinging to the familiar, not for the hell of it, but because clinging to the familiar produces pride, fear and prejudice, aka, suffering. . I suppose my posts provide you with the same high contrast.

As I see it, you are terrified of being without a name or having names for everything you see, hear, taste, touch and smell. The pull of Being, however, is to experience life in its purest form - raw and 'untamed ' (unnamed) and no amount of the mind's desire to keep it tamed will change the existential drive for 'just being'. Rational thought is a wonderful tool to provide that necessary veil of order for the mind but it is not the experience of LIFE.

Shall we continue or am I to receive your safety of a blessing dismissal?
User avatar
Santiago Odo
Posts: 506
Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2017 1:26 am
Location: Dark Void

Re: Why study philosophy?

Post by Santiago Odo »

“Pam” wrote:Your desire to cling to your European traditions is the antithesis to experiencing the self on the deepest ontological level where concepts are secondary, not primary. There is no growth or expansion when the conceptual self refuses to release its grip on the familiar, and concepts that define the self are always the safe and familiar. There is no genius in the familiarity of the thought - patterned self, genius used in this sense of being willing to be awake and open to experience in every moment. The open(ed) self is in the world but not of the world, the essential message of Jesus' teachings, but because you love the tradition of Christianity, not the spirit of Christ's words, I believe you are deaf to what he was saying.
I would respond thusly :

1) The recommendation to experience the self at the deepest ontological level, in my view, could I suppose have a *function* (if I can put it like this) as some part of a larger and encompassing spiritual life. But as I mentioned to you in another place *the transports of the mystics* require, if you will, a control, and that control as I understand it today is theology. The sense here is that mystical experience, though attractive, encompassing, perhaps even fulfilling and meaningful in some or many ways, has to be measured in some way, and that requires a *measurer*. And that brings the issue back to the realm of reasoned consideration, a project that I associate not merely with *reason* (as it is used on this forum) but with intellectus, another level of mind and experience.

2) As I have mentioned in other places, it is my view that we need to critically examine your very basic recommendation before it is accepted as having validity. I am also of the opinion that there is something in what you say and recommend that unites you with our forum founders and also with some general trends that came out into popular culture at some point, notably in the Sixties. I do not think I would have to prove that this is so. The psychedelic experience, the abandonment of *our own traditions* and an obsessed flocking over to the traditions and the traditionalism of other cultures, the establishment of universalist ideals based out of such ‘experiences’ as you speak about, and all of this in a mood of personal and cultural crisis and *loss of self*, have led to the conditions to which I attach the term ‘nihilism’. Therefor, it seems to me that, yes, I suppose there could be a positive engagement by someone, in some context, where the ontology of the self is explored, felt, ‘experienced’ as you say. But it could just as easily, and quickly, become a technique of avoiding not only the self but the self’s responsibilities. To define ‘the self’s responsibilities’ is to define theology in my view. And the term ‘theology’ means an interpretation through experience that leads to specific courses of action on life’s planes of activity. These things become defined through man’s work. It is in this sense that I use the term ‘tradition’.

I am particularly concerned when our willed activities become over-empowered and over-emphasized, and when our *desperation* in our particular circumstances cause us to choose what seem in a moment like viable and positive alternatives as a sort of *cure* to our dis-foundationed circumstances. This is how I interpret the project of DD&K if looked at from a number of paces back and from a position, shall we say, above. The self encounters itself in crisis surrounded by people and conditions spinning out of control and in this condition experiences *desperation*. It must attain something, some buffer, some surety, some confidence, and must do this as quickly as possible to alleviate the self’s dangerous condition. I place this in a category of *psychological crisis*. Unpopular though my perspective is, I see 95% of the discourse on this forum as arising within desperate individuals caught in webs of desperation. Therefor, confronting this, I have come to certain of my own realizations about this *general condition* shared by so many of us.

3) To speak of European Traditions is to use a general word that is not satisfactory, yet I must use some term. I have the impression that when I use this term I am not at all understood. The reason, it seems to me (as I have said) is because of general ignorance. That is, the social and cultural conditions we have faced, the forces that have come to bear against us, have *knocked us off our foundation* and we suffer in that post-condition. One side-effect of that post-condition is schizm-of-self which is also schizm-from-context. For example, I would say that what I take away from you and your discourse is not unity-of-self nor unity-of-self-within-cultural-and-social contexts, but someone who has become confortable living in and speaking from a very limited sliver of experience and ‘defined responsibility’. This is not to make a statement against you in a personal sense. As I said your entire program has to be seen in terms of a general paideia. And if you and other readers here do not understand what is meant by paideia it is because . . . you have been knocked off of your proper foundations. You cannot even define foundation for self and when you do it is in enormous abstractions that seem to have almost a neurotic origin.

What happens when a self loses its connections with itself and, as I say, its ‘traditions’, is that the structure-of-self begins to dissolve. This I refer to as *acid* and these acids are all around us dissolving great things that have been achieved through tremendous work within this plane of manifestation. But you — you especially — often refer to these things as ‘secondary’ and by placing them in rungs below your *cherished experience*, your *cherished discourse*, you obviously indicate that you do not understand them. And you are not alone. To be truthful, examining the discourse of many who write and have written, here and seen certainly from a certain angle, one sees the sputterings of intelligent imbeciles. Thousands of man-hours devoted to inanities! This is, I suggest, what the forces acting against the self cause to occur within individual who have lost their essential foundations. It is an endless spinning of the wheels, an endless treading of water, that arrives at nothing at all!

The purpose of the Self in this plane of manifestation is to quickly gain a footing within substantial solidities and to act with them and through higher consciousness. If the self has lost its footing it finds itself in a dangerous place and struggles — without guidance shall I say — it leads to greater difficulty and greater danger. Many things rush in to fill the void, to quell the sense of desperation and confusion.

What you have written in the above paragraph, I am sad to say, amounts to psycho-babble. I do not discount your personal experience in your own realm. But you are not understanding — not at all understanding — the dangerous situation in which we-personally and we-collectively find ourselves. I refer to European Regeneration and to the responsibility-of-self to regain a footing and to act from this footing. To describe what this means is not simple. To communicate with those *blinded* as Gloucester was blinded when he saw is not easy. As I have quoted before and more than once ‘obstinacy makes one deaf for all that one has ears’.

To understand *obstinacy* as I use the word means to understand the ungrounded self yet puffed up with tremendous forward-driving willfulness. The best emblem I can produce here, in my critical discourse, is just to present David or Dan and to a certain extent Kevin as examples. And my own *critical project* is founded, if you will, in having taken a critical position against *them*. But this has little to do with individual persons and far more to do with larger, encompassing social and cultural phenomena.
___________________

I present some excerpts from talks by Jonathan Bowden that speak directly to concerns that developed in my own process as a result of my encounter with our Beloved Forum Founders. Not the only influence but I have been associated with this forum now for many years as many of us have.

(The imagery is cheesy at points but represents a noble effort to to use a communications medium to relay important ideas).

What amazes me, to no end really, is how especially D&D rendered themselves totally irrelevant! And dropped the ball that they attempted to carry! I assume Dan drowns himself in beer-suds and David, even now, is teeing off!

What this means to me is that they became possessed by *desperate will* but unguided will. They burned brightly and then ... flared out.

But I suggest that what they began had real and important meaning. It must be recovered and must be continued.
You I'll never leave
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Why study philosophy?

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Alex wrote:Truth is discovered within a social and cultural context : our context. It is expressed in *our traditions* and through *our achievements* and does not exist as an abstract noun (that is how you, and they, use the term).
Wouldn't you agree that's basically a Structuralist position? Or in other words, that such position makes the existence of the metaphysics you often promote rather superfluous and unnecessary? It could be added of course but it has simply no consequence for the method of analysis. Truth as a function of context simply destroys all notions within any Medieval metaphysics. Here lies the contradiction I bump into following your rhetoric: your methods emulate the structuralist but your beliefs a whole other one. And it doesn't appear so far that the two will ever meet or connect.

However, it's in line with how I see fragmentation as property and destiny of all modern thought.
User avatar
Santiago Odo
Posts: 506
Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2017 1:26 am
Location: Dark Void

Re: Why study philosophy?

Post by Santiago Odo »

Diebert wrote:Truth as a function of context simply destroys all notions within any Medieval metaphysics.
I think it possible in any philosophical context -- and perhaps pseudo-philosophical contexts more especially -- to begin a process of parsing through a written communication, the conveyance of ideas. If one were so inclined one course parse intended meanings into sheer shreds.

So, yes, perhaps, taken at a linguistic level, to say that truth is evident or non-evident within contexts could *destroy* the supposed metaphysics ; render an assertion of metaphysics moot. Except that I mean nothing at all like that. Obviously, my notion of metaphysics turns on the idea of 'eternal' and 'constant' and perhaps pre-existent (to the manifest world). However, I can admit that one can work with certain forms of ideas (say 'structuralist') and yet not be conscious of it. If you see structuralism perhaps you could better explain where and how.

In my view it is our metaphysics, those that have been dealt with, dealt on, incorporated into the very structure of our selves within our specific trajectory, that have given rise to the 'truths' evident within our contexts. We therefor do not grope for truths in abstractions but rather within our own contexts. It is, I think so at least, a different way of understanding the harmony and unity within our systems.

You could back up a few paces and -- perhaps, just perhaps -- conclude that the label of 'structuralist' is an imposition of your own invention here. Though surely analysis and employing labels are necessary endeavors. Yet I do not see in this case how yours relates to my ideas re: Medieval metaphysics or so-called Greco-Christianity.

It is important to understand that in my conception 'Christ' (and thus 'Christianity') enter into history as a radical-other. The notion of the 'radical new' comes into play. The very idea of it is on the one hand of something eternal and ever-existent yet new and immediate which, somehow, comes to bear within time and history, and of course in man's doings. There is a strange contradiction there, I recognize.
However, it's in line with how I see fragmentation as property and destiny of all modern thought.
Sure, but that assertion is perhaps the most fundamental and repeating trope within your structure of ideas, isn't it? I am curious though : if the outcome of modern thought is fragmentation, what thought then would an individual seeking to avoid that horrid fate avail himself of? Is recovery possible?
You I'll never leave
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Why study philosophy?

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Santiago Odo wrote: Mon Jun 18, 2018 6:02 am You could back up a few paces and -- perhaps, just perhaps -- conclude that the label of 'structuralist' is an imposition of your own invention here. Though surely analysis and employing labels are necessary endeavors. Yet I do not see in this case how yours relates to my ideas re: Medieval metaphysics or so-called Greco-Christianity.
No need to step back. Saying that truth is discovered within a social and cultural context and "does not exist as an abstract noun" is typical structuralism. It's a label which refers to actual philosophical developments. Ideas which have consequences when you start deploying them as a way to do discourse...

But no you are not "free" to jump over contradictions as irrelevant. The consequence in your case is that it renders your own discourse rather dysfunctional. The only way people will catch on with it is by applying power to go with it, volume, the game of persuasion and even politics.

Ah well it all doesn't matter that much. For me your (still quite interesting!) intellect seems to simply run into a wall when it comes to understanding crucial topics like the problem of nihilism, post-modern and post-structural analysis, the history and fundamentals of "Europe" and the nature of the absolute within philosophical thought. The consequence of that is lack of traction, effect and meaningful dialog.

And yet you need to follow your own journey I suppose. Nobody can ultimately know what comes out of it. It's just my impression and prediction from my own naturally limited scope and observation. Less limited than most though...
However, it's in line with how I see fragmentation as property and destiny of all modern thought.
Sure, but that assertion is perhaps the most fundamental and repeating trope within your structure of ideas, isn't it? I am curious though : if the outcome of modern thought is fragmentation as a result, what thought then would an individual seeking to avoid that horrid fate avail himself of?
Distractions foremost! The nature of this fragmentation cannot be grasped without becoming fragmented even as "onlooker". There's no steady objective, safe position possible here. The idea that on the individual level one can swim meaningfully against the flow of larger events is delusional. And yet I do not agree with the notion of "horrid fate". It sounds awfully melodramatic. Don't you remember what the core myths told you about all this?
User avatar
Santiago Odo
Posts: 506
Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2017 1:26 am
Location: Dark Void

Re: Why study philosophy?

Post by Santiago Odo »

Your observations, as always, are interesting as well and have some merit. But what you are doing here — predominantly — is abstracting words and turns of phrases from sentences and then applying your particular analytic skills to a parsing game. I am not very interested in that game. From where I sit, you operate from some a prioris and are largely applying them, not so much getting to the heart of what I am communicating.

To say that truth does not exist as an ‘abstract noun’ was meant differently than how you are treating it. An abstract noun is a word, or a notion, but the *truths* that I am referring to, which have been realized and translated, if you will, into our very selves — one of my principal allusions, and an important one, insofar as when I say that ‘truths are discovered within our contexts’ I also mean within our selves — are part-and-parcel of what I mean by *metaphysics*. Our metaphysics, and our creations — our selves — are of a kind. But a word-concept, within a being under the pressures of nihilism, becomes abstractly monolithic in my view. The abstract monolith is not what interests me, but rather the essence of truth, which for me is not abstract though it may be in origin metaphysical and timeless.
But no you are not "free" to jump over contradictions as irrelevant. The consequence in your case is that it renders your own discourse rather dysfunctional. The only way people will catch on with it is by applying power to go with it, volume, the game of persuasion and even politics.
Unless I am mistaken I did not say as much. Yet I am free indeed to posit apparent contradictions since, in fact, life is essentially contradictory in too many ways to name. To say ‘dysfunctional’ implies a pathology so, with your permission, I would rather resist the label. Yet I do not mind a conversation that allows for discussion of what is functional and also dysfunctional. It is really the very core of what we are talking about, and a good basis for any worthwhile discovery. As you know — we have encountered this in other places — I obviously do tend to be critical not of you or your personality, but what I understand of your *existential position* if I may put it like that. What that means is that after 10 million words, or perhaps 100 million words, I have gained no sense at all of who you are, what you stand for, and what you work toward. Therefor — good! — let us foreground function and dysfunction within the context of *self* and the self’s actions. That is really all that concerns me and I can find value in little else.

If I am dysfunctional, or if my discourse is disordered, if what I recommend is not coherant and truthful, then it will certainly be revealed — to me. It will become apparent as do all manifestations of dysfunction. But if that is true for me, it is similarly true for you and for all of us, wouldn’t you say?
Ah well it all doesn't matter that much. For me your (still quite interesting!) intellect seems to simply run into a wall when it comes to understanding crucial topics like the problem of nihilism, post-modern and post-structural analysis, the history and fundamentals of "Europe" and the nature of the absolute within philosophical thought. The consequence of that is lack of traction, effect and meaningful dialog.
Well, it does all of it matter a great deal, in fact. But I think within the loop of your cherished ideas, and by your own admission your own status within those ideas, you do not (IMHO) have much of a platform to make important judgments. Though you can make from time to time poignant quips. In a *game* of philosophy I acknowledge your skill, but I am less certain of how you live and for that reason, shall I say, uncertain of the quality and also the maturity of your realization.

Realization in my book is translated into actions and also to discourse. You are free of course to make any insinuations you wish to in regard to ‘understanding crucial topics like nihilism’, but this implies some special knowledge, something to be revealed. Will you blame me much or feel resentment if I simply mention that I do not see it forthcoming? That is : mature, relevant discourse on vital topics crucial to life-lived.

As to discourse on ‘the nature of the absolute within philosophical thought’ I can say that I do not admire high-faluting pretense. And that is what most of this post of yours is about, and certainly that sentence. Talk about ‘the history and fundamentals of Europe’, and make the dialog *meaningful*. If there is a point where one’s sense of spirituality, of meaning, of value and purpose, should become ‘blood sports’ it is when someone makes great claims to important knowledge but cannot, not really, back it up. As you know, dear one, this is mostly how I see you.

So I guess we might conclude that we are, shall we say, suspicious of one another? :-) Par for the course, isn’t it?
Distractions foremost! The nature of this fragmentation cannot be grasped without becoming fragmented even as "onlooker". There's no steady objective, safe position possible here. The idea that on the individual level one can swim meaningfully against the flow of larger events is delusional. And yet I do not agree with the notion of "horrid fate". It sounds awfully melodramatic. Don't you remember what the core myths told you about all this?
Sorry, Diebert. I am not interested in your rabbit-holes and the word-games you play. They give evidence of an immaturity I am not longer even somewhat charmed by. So, I pass on any comment to this sort of inanity.
You I'll never leave
User avatar
Santiago Odo
Posts: 506
Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2017 1:26 am
Location: Dark Void

Re: Why study philosophy?

Post by Santiago Odo »

Long ago, in the province of a Frankish king, an able peasant named D. received word from his priest that certain divination methods long practiced in the region, and specifically in this peasant’s family lineage, were to be prohibited and, if found out, punished with excessive penance and possible excommunication. There was even talk of more severe punishments as superstition was rampant in the region and had to be eliminated.

D.’s family had long been known to read augurs from the random cries of certain animals and the locals flocked to their compound to seek answers to important questions. One at a time they would be brought in to sit and when their question had been asked D. would contemplate, often for hours, waiting for the sign. Might have come through the far off cry of the dove or the shriek of a hawk flying overhead but a sign always came.

When the priest informed the bishop that D. had not ceased his ancient technique of divination, the bishop chose to visit him in person, but obviously disguised as a local, D.’s only clientele. He waited outside among many unruly peasants. A hen pecked at his boot and looked at him inquisitively. When his turn came he entered inside the darkened hut.

Unbeknownst to the bishop D. had been informed of his scheme, and when the bishop presented his question D. politely but a little dramatically informed him that such practices were now outmoded and of course outlawed and under no circumstance could he assist. In fact, he explained, it was all really vain superstition and no one of standing and education really ever believed in it and certainly he did not.

But right then — loudly, and quite evidently, and even those waiting outside unmistakingly heard — a weasel screamed in the rafters and was followed immediately by a rat’s hair-raising cry from within the walls. Everyone knew what they signified and everyone was silent. For a moment all that was heard was the soughing of the wind.

D. sat there staring at the bishop and the bishop remained sitting for a long time. The echoes of the ominous screams lingered in the air and rang in the memory of all those nearby. It was not until dusk that the bishop excused himself and returned to his quarters.
You I'll never leave
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Why study philosophy?

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Santiago Odo wrote: Mon Jun 18, 2018 10:22 amabstracting words and turns of phrases from sentences and then applying your particular analytic skills to a parsing game.
You mean attempting a conversation about the words & phrases you are using and their logical coherence and consequences? It's obvious you were never interested in such thing when it comes to your own writing. But I thought to highlight it again.
To say that truth does not exist as an ‘abstract noun’ was meant differently than how you are treating it. An abstract noun is a word, or a notion but the *truths* that I am referring to, which have been realized and translated, if you will, into our very selves
It's only you who is trying to divorce these two and then holding all the consequences of that divorce against the other!
The abstract monolith is not what interests me, but rather the essence of truth, which for me is not abstract though it may be in origin metaphysical and timeless.
Again making splits where there's ultimately none. Any functional, coherent, relating, shining, reflecting abstract is essence.
Distractions foremost! The nature of this fragmentation cannot be grasped without becoming fragmented even as "onlooker". There's no steady objective, safe position possible here. The idea that on the individual level one can swim meaningfully against the flow of larger events is delusional. And yet I do not agree with the notion of "horrid fate". It sounds awfully melodramatic. Don't you remember what the core myths told you about all this?
Sorry, Diebert. I am not interested in your rabbit-holes and the word-games you play. They give evidence of an immaturity I am not longer even somewhat charmed by. So, I pass on any comment to this sort of inanity.
That you'd object to that last paragraph was a bit surprising. It was meant as serious, thoughtful and revealing. We are fragmenting, even within this very discourse but it's part of a larger development. As you often describe so well. So it was even trying the create a bridge with your own views! And then I put a typical Nietzschean "yes saying" spin on it with a rather obvious link to Osirian and Christian body fragmentation as the old myths go. They might be word games but I'd call them Word Games in this case. Your reaction tells me there's something else you saw in it and I'm somewhat intrigued.
User avatar
Santiago Odo
Posts: 506
Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2017 1:26 am
Location: Dark Void

Re: Why study philosophy?

Post by Santiago Odo »

Diebert wrote:When the pawn promotes in the game, as some say the true goal of the game is, where does the new piece comes from?
You ask this question as if you did not know the answer . . . but you really do know, don't you?
And then I put a typical Nietzschean "yes saying" spin on it with a rather obvious link to Osirian and Christian body fragmentation as the old myths go.
I did notice and was impressed. Still mulling over a response. My muse labours . . .
You I'll never leave
Pam Seeback
Posts: 2619
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: Why study philosophy?

Post by Pam Seeback »

Alex: 1) The recommendation to experience the self at the deepest ontological level, in my view, could I suppose have a *function* (if I can put it like this) as some part of a larger and encompassing spiritual life. But as I mentioned to you in another place *the transports of the mystics* require, if you will, a control, and that control as I understand it today is theology. The sense here is that mystical experience, though attractive, encompassing, perhaps even fulfilling and meaningful in some or many ways, has to be measured in some way, and that requires a *measurer*. And that brings the issue back to the realm of reasoned consideration, a project that I associate not merely with *reason* (as it is used on this forum) but with intellectus, another level of mind and experience.
The rational mind is ever in search of measurement, and yet, the only kind it can find that is absolutely true are mathematical facts. 2 + 2 = 4 is always true, but 2 + 2 = 4 does not satisfy the feeling sense of man, and the feeling sense of man cannot be measured. Herein lies, to use one of your religious terms, its saving grace.
2) As I have mentioned in other places, it is my view that we need to critically examine your very basic recommendation before it is accepted as having validity.
You cannot critically validate the experience of silence/oneness, you can only experience it with your entire body or being. If one is to define the type of knowledge given in the experience, it is intuitive, not rational.

You want a rational explanation for something that is not rational.
I am also of the opinion that there is something in what you say and recommend that unites you with our forum founders and also with some general trends that came out into popular culture at some point, notably in the Sixties. I do not think I would have to prove that this is so. The psychedelic experience, the abandonment of *our own traditions* and an obsessed flocking over to the traditions and the traditionalism of other cultures, the establishment of universalist ideals based out of such ‘experiences’ as you speak about, and all of this in a mood of personal and cultural crisis and *loss of self*, have led to the conditions to which I attach the term ‘nihilism’. Therefor, it seems to me that, yes, I suppose there could be a positive engagement by someone, in some context, where the ontology of the self is explored, felt, ‘experienced’ as you say. But it could just as easily, and quickly, become a technique of avoiding not only the self but the self’s responsibilities. To define ‘the self’s responsibilities’ is to define theology in my view. And the term ‘theology’ means an interpretation through experience that leads to specific courses of action on life’s planes of activity. These things become defined through man’s work. It is in this sense that I use the term ‘tradition’.
Every example you gave above is an example of fear of the silence of thought and of filling it with 'something', be it drugs or religious flights of fancy. And although theology is not drug induced nor does it produce religious flights of fancy, it too denies the validity of Silence as the Experience of Being.
I am particularly concerned when our willed activities become over-empowered and over-emphasized,
We share common ground here.
and when our *desperation* in our particular circumstances cause us to choose what seem in a moment like viable and positive alternatives as a sort of *cure* to our dis-foundationed circumstances.
Your rational mind is not going to like what I am going to say here, but the experience of silence/oneness provides a critical piece of intuitive wisdom: we do not choose anything, as a matter of fact, it is our belief that we DO choose that causes our grief and sense of desperation. The mind that is caught up in the delusion of choice can never know if its choice is right, perfect, true, this is its hell. And for the religious-minded, not choosing the right, perfect and true thing potentially leads to fretting about eternal banishment to the experience of hellfire. It is traditional psychology and religion that promote the delusion of free will, free will is not how reality works.
This is how I interpret the project of DD&K if looked at from a number of paces back and from a position, shall we say, above. The self encounters itself in crisis surrounded by people and conditions spinning out of control and in this condition experiences *desperation*. It must attain something, some buffer, some surety, some confidence, and must do this as quickly as possible to alleviate the self’s dangerous condition. I place this in a category of *psychological crisis*. Unpopular though my perspective is, I see 95% of the discourse on this forum as arising within desperate individuals caught in webs of desperation. Therefor, confronting this, I have come to certain of my own realizations about this *general condition* shared by so many of us.
This crisis is very real, but it is not a crisis of making the right choice or of finding the perfect rational or emotional matrix upon which to form the self, this type of activity only promotes a deepening of the delusion of free will, thereby deepening the experience of human suffering.
3) To speak of European Traditions is to use a general word that is not satisfactory, yet I must use some term. I have the impression that when I use this term I am not at all understood. The reason, it seems to me (as I have said) is because of general ignorance. That is, the social and cultural conditions we have faced, the forces that have come to bear against us, have *knocked us off our foundation* and we suffer in that post-condition. One side-effect of that post-condition is schizm-of-self which is also schizm-from-context.
Although the experience of silence/oneness cannot be defined in the sense of the definition = the experience, there is never a void of context. My writing here is evidence of that. While one is 'in or of silence', context is absent, however, because man cannot live without context, context can be provided. There are countless concepts that can be used to allude to the experience of oneness, a few being 'unity', 'connectivity', 'allness', 'wholeness', 'infinite', 'eternal', etc. but to one who has not experienced the silence/oneness, it will indeed seem to this person that they are, to use your phrase below "psycho babble." Context is not an issue for the one who realizes that context is NOT the experience.
For example, I would say that what I take away from you and your discourse is not unity-of-self nor unity-of-self-within-cultural-and-social contexts, but someone who has become confortable living in and speaking from a very limited sliver of experience and ‘defined responsibility’. This is not to make a statement against you in a personal sense. As I said your entire program has to be seen in terms of a general paideia. And if you and other readers here do not understand what is meant by paideia it is because . . . you have been knocked off of your proper foundations. You cannot even define foundation for self and when you do it is in enormous abstractions that seem to have almost a neurotic origin.
Au contraire! Being of the silence/oneness opens one up to being responsible to every moment that oneness is not being reflected in speech or behaviour. I assume you realize that most of the word operates from the ego of division, promoting hate, lust and fear? Believe me, there is no shortage of work of the Oneness Realized!
What happens when a self loses its connections with itself and, as I say, its ‘traditions’, is that the structure-of-self begins to dissolve. This I refer to as *acid* and these acids are all around us dissolving great things that have been achieved through tremendous work within this plane of manifestation. But you — you especially — often refer to these things as ‘secondary’ and by placing them in rungs below your *cherished experience*, your *cherished discourse*, you obviously indicate that you do not understand them.
Acid cannot burn away silence or oneness realization - the only substantial foundation man has.
And you are not alone. To be truthful, examining the discourse of many who write and have written, here and seen certainly from a certain angle, one sees the sputterings of intelligent imbeciles. Thousands of man-hours devoted to inanities! This is, I suggest, what the forces acting against the self cause to occur within individual who have lost their essential foundations. It is an endless spinning of the wheels, an endless treading of water, that arrives at nothing at all!
When trying to express the experience of silence/oneness to someone who is 'stuck' in rational consciousness, most certainly it sounds like the spinning of wheels and and endless treading of water. Because it is not THE EXPERIENCE. I cannot express enough how critical is the necessity to experience the fullness and depth of Silence before they can honestly 'be against it.' Tel me - what can the rational mind offer us that is not endless spinning and treading of water?
The purpose of the Self in this plane of manifestation is to quickly gain a footing within substantial solidities and to act with them and through higher consciousness. If the self has lost its footing it finds itself in a dangerous place and struggles — without guidance shall I say — it leads to greater difficulty and greater danger. Many things rush in to fill the void, to quell the sense of desperation and confusion.
'Higher consciousness?' Talk about an abstract concept!
What you have written in the above paragraph, I am sad to say, amounts to psycho-babble. I do not discount your personal experience in your own realm. But you are not understanding — not at all understanding — the dangerous situation in which we-personally and we-collectively find ourselves. I refer to European Regeneration and to the responsibility-of-self to regain a footing and to act from this footing. To describe what this means is not simple. To communicate with those *blinded* as Gloucester was blinded when he saw is not easy. As I have quoted before and more than once ‘obstinacy makes one deaf for all that one has ears’.
Oh but I do understand and I do care deeply. And every sentiment you have expressed to me above, I express to you. As you believe me to be blind, I believe you to be blind. I believe you to be the desperate one, not I. Hmmm...:-)
To understand *obstinacy* as I use the word means to understand the ungrounded self yet puffed up with tremendous forward-driving willfulness. The best emblem I can produce here, in my critical discourse, is just to present David or Dan and to a certain extent Kevin as examples. And my own *critical project* is founded, if you will, in having taken a critical position against *them*. But this has little to do with individual persons and far more to do with larger, encompassing social and cultural phenomena.
Alex, please be honest here. If I am puffed up with will, so are you.

The self is not ungrounded in Silence/Oneness, Silence/Oneness IS the ground of self. There I go again, willfully pushing my obstinacy! So be it, just doing 'the work'.
___________________
I present some excerpts from talks by Jonathan Bowden that speak directly to concerns that developed in my own process as a result of my encounter with our Beloved Forum Founders. Not the only influence but I have been associated with this forum now for many years as many of us have.

(The imagery is cheesy at points but represents a noble effort to to use a communications medium to relay important ideas).

What amazes me, to no end really, is how especially D&D rendered themselves totally irrelevant! And dropped the ball that they attempted to carry! I assume Dan drowns himself in beer-suds and David, even now, is teeing off!

What this means to me is that they became possessed by *desperate will* but unguided will. They burned brightly and then ... flared out.

But I suggest that what they began had real and important meaning. It must be recovered and must be continued.
So let's continue what they began with or without the forum founders. You believe you have the way to save the lost self, I believe I have the way...swords up, hearts open, context-at-ready...
User avatar
Santiago Odo
Posts: 506
Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2017 1:26 am
Location: Dark Void

Re: Why study philosophy?

Post by Santiago Odo »

I read what you wrote — a couple of times because I appreciate that you make the effort. I have nothing to add to what I wrote previously and were I to respond it would be just to repeat in different ways what I had already expressed. I do not deny nor invalidate your experience or your sense of things (what is important for you or what you recommend for people) but my area of activity and my interest is simply *totally different*.
You I'll never leave
Locked