GENIUS FORUMS

this is a manifesto denying the denial of Solipsism... and then turning tail and running back down Plato's cave... achingly wonderful reasons on my mind...

it’s also me taking a swing at Sophia… which is to say Maya… only it might turn out to be a hug…

hope you like it,

ryan =)

(snag a copy here:

http://mayasecret.googlepages.com/home
or
email me @ mayasecret@gmail.com and I'll slide one over...)

I can't get the file to load. What program did you use to create it?

if the new link up top doesn't work, drop me a line and I'll schmooze you my thoughts via email...
=)
mayasecret@gmail.com

Does the document contain more than merely text because I can load it with Wordpad but there's a ton of formatting garbage after all the text?

Here Dan,

Haven't read it, don't vouch for it.

Bryan McGilly


note: Edited out manifesto. Diarrhea-of-mouth and mental masturbation cited as reasons.

I’m not sure how one goes about asking complete strangers to noodle through 60+ pages of one’s own thoughts… ideas here better resembling alphabet soup gone insane than an organized progression of thinkery… sentences completely unsolicited… though I am, I must say, increasingly confident that this most likely isn’t…

Now, to be perfectly honest: I’d like very much for this to become a thread… only… there’s a hitch…
It’s not that I think that Ann Landers/Dear Abbey-size hunks of philosophy are incapable of communicating meaningful musings - even though in my experience around these kinds of places they as often as not don't - it’s just that my original post’s way too long… (and it’s also got a background I’ve kind of grown partial to… and, in the Word version, endnote links which are really quite convenient… just hold the cursor over the green flower thingy and the endnote pops up… =)

So, while this is a link to a paper I’ve written, it’s more importantly the beginning of a thread of discussion… just somewhat unconventional…

Thus, if you’ve the audacity to actually give this train wreck of a swan song – actually it’s more of a croak - a shot, then this is what you’re getting yourself into:
This half of a manifesto is the last breath of my faith in philosophy… brought on – or rather carried off – by the discovery/admission/belief that philosophy is in fact nothing more than language… indoctrination one-year-olds gets kisses and other kinds of attention for… and that’s it… and disagree if you’d like… tell me how you or your artist friend think without words… only, for your own self esteem, please don’t notice that you’re telling me all about how you/she/he do what you do wordlessly…

You’re also going to hear a denial of there being any philosophical progress to speak of to date… in that the replacements haven’t exactly done just that… as in, if you’ve yet to make it off of the drawing board, it takes faith – or rather ignorance and presuppositions – to believe yourself to be anywhere else…

Essential to this paper is Alan Watts’ idea of a ‘think,’ a ‘unit of thought’… which is to say something… something that’s certainly this and not that… leading me back to the notion that human minds work within a system of dichotomy… giving metaphysics not so much the boot as it does 2 of them… sorry… however, whether you were aware of it or not, Plato indeed lost his forms in his own lifetime... and he knew it… and no one’s propped them back up since then…

Lastly, this paper is written with its nose as well as well as its middle finger way up at the idea that philosophy – or rather whatever/Whatever philosophy’s chasing – is only to be found within page limits… within convention… and chained to the MLA citation format…

That said, if you don’t want to suffer through the whole thing, we can get this started simply with your refutation/agreement that there has, in fact, been no real progress in philosophy…

Thanks in advance for any and all of your time… it’s sincerely appreciated much more than much…
=)
ryan

http://mayasecret.googlepages.com/home
mayasecret@gmail.com

If you're talking about Western academic philosophy, I agree that there has been little or no progress. If anything, there has been a regression over the years, particularly since the 19th century.

However, genuine philosophy is rarely a group process, like science or academia is. Genuine philosophical progress can really only be found in the rational individual who successfully eliminates the delusions in his mind and breaks through into ultimate understanding. There has been plenty of progress on this front. Many individuals thoughout history have succeeded in philosophy - e.g. Lao Tzu, Buddha, Diogenes, Huang Po, Hakuin, Kierkegaard, etc. You don't seem to be taking these great thinkers into account.

In short, because you badly misconstrue what philosophy is, I think your central thesis is rather meaningless.

-

DavidQuinn000 wrote:If you're talking about Western academic philosophy, I agree that there has been little or no progress. If anything, there has been a regression over the years, particularly since the 19th century.

However, genuine philosophy is rarely a group process, like science or academia is. Genuine philosophical progress can really only be found in the rational individual who successfully eliminates the delusions in his mind and breaks through into ultimate understanding. There has been plenty of progress on this front. Many individuals thoughout history have succeeded in philosophy - e.g. Lao Tzu, Buddha, Diogenes, Huang Po, Hakuin, Kierkegaard, etc. You don't seem to be taking these great thinkers into account.

In short, because you badly misconstrue what philosophy is, I think your central thesis is rather meaningless.

-

Sorry, but I have to ask... have you read my paper?
Do you know what One is?
I rather think that It's rather less than zero... and, in case you're unaware, mystics for this very reason don't write books and pass on what they can't say... which appears to me to be very little philosophical progress indeed...
Enlightenment sure, but not philosophy... which is an entirely social proces... as seen by your reply as well as mine...
=)
Don't forget that the daodejing begins by telling you that whatever you come up with isn't going to be dao... and thus, if you even think you're misconstruing what the great mystics have never been able to say... then you're somewhat in the dark... which, as Plato's cave has it, is where all the action is...

mayasecret wrote:

Sorry, but I have to ask... have you read my paper?

No, I don't like downloading anything unless I know it is worth downloading. Nothing on your webpage gives a clear indication of what is contained in your document.

Do you know what One is?
I rather think that It's rather less than zero... and, in case you're unaware, mystics for this very reason don't write books and pass on what they can't say...
which appears to me to be very little philosophical progress indeed...

There have been any excellent texts by enlightened "mystics" expressing the very highest philosophy - e.g. Tao Te Ching, Buddhist Sutras, the teachings of Huang Po, Hakuin's writings. Kierkegaard's many books, etc. These are all monumental works. Thus, one can only conclude that there has been astounding philosophic progress throughout history.

Enlightenment sure, but not philosophy... which is an entirely social proces... as seen by your reply as well as mine...
=)

The social aspect of the process is minimal. As teachers, and as a society, we can help create the favourable conditions for individuals to think deeply and become wise, but for the most part it is up to each individual to make the effort himself. Each individual has to inwardly leave society and go for it utterly alone.

Don't forget that the daodejing begins by telling you that whatever you come up with isn't going to be dao...

That first line in the daodejing (or Tao Te Ching) has to be one of the most misunderstood lines of all time.

Why don't we stop pussy-footing around and start doing some serious philosophy. If it were truly the case that "whatever you come up against isn't the dao", then by what process did Lao Tzu himself come to understand the dao? What do you think?

-

No, I don't like downloading anything unless I know it is worth downloading. Nothing on your webpage gives a clear indication of what is contained in your document.

well aren't you a treat...
all right, Ann Landers it is...

There have been any excellent texts by enlightened "mystics" expressing the very highest philosophy - e.g. Tao Te Ching, Buddhist Sutras, the teachings of Huang Po, Hakuin's writings. Kierkegaard's many books, etc. These are all monumental works. Thus, one can only conclude that there has been astounding philosophic progress throughout history.

Um... have you noticed how they go to such lengths metioning that they're never ever going to get it out in words? Do you know why the leap of faith's a leap? And how do you know that they're the very highest? That's an interesting notion... mysticism measured on a scale like that... I think you might get a lot out of Zhuangzi telling a friend of his where dao's really to be found...

The social aspect of the process is minimal. As teachers, and as a society, we can help create the favourable conditions for individuals to think deeply and become wise, but for the most part it is up to each individual to make the effort himself. Each individual has to inwardly leave society and go for it utterly alone.

right... uh... all your mystics up there exist to us today for the single reason that THEY WROTE BOOKS! And where would they and their traditions be without communication?

And you yourself are working here -predominantly if not utterly - within a framework of language, so at least have the sincerity to notice that that's what you're doing...
If words are so unimportant/minimal to you, cross your legs and do your own thing...
What are you doing here? You're arguing one point, and doing the opposite...

That first line in the daodejing (or Tao Te Ching) has to be one of the most misunderstood lines of all time.

It has to be one of the most sincere as well...

Why don't we stop pussy-footing around and start doing some serious philosophy. If it were truly the case that "whatever you come up against isn't the dao", then by what process did Lao Tzu himself come to understand the dao? What do you think?

Some serious philosophy like what: more talking?
What exactly should we be doing more of here: what you're saying or what you're doing?

Also, have you any idea how many Laozi's are suspected to have had a hand in writing the daodejing? Are you aware of how many recensions we've dug up? 3 that I know of... the earliest ones quite different (as well as older) than the one we've been ascribing to Laozi...
That's food for thought before you talk about some guy named Laozi again...

Oh, and I think that the process this one guy Laozi used to understand the dao =) was LANGUAGE! And he (if you believe it was just one guy who actually wrote a book before he reclused instead of a bunch of guys who actually didn't recluse and who were somewhat more partial to communication) started the thing off with the sly grin that language will never work!