GENIUS FORUMS

Kelly Jones wrote:One can spot a true philosopher in how they begin a thought.

The entire domain of thought is open at that point. One has not begun. There is nothing asserted, nothing taken for granted. One is neither certain about anything, nor uncertain about anything.

What does one do at that point? How does one begin to think philosophically?

Philosophical thought is absoluteness. Its function is to find complete and final definitions. It is the mind striking a blow at the whole, a bullet fired at the target of permanence. It seeks the essence, the vital character, the utter truth of.

So the only possible way to begin philosophising, the only first premise, is firing the gun of thought at the ultimate target of the whole, and seeing that the bullet is part of that target.

This is where academic philosophy always fucks up. The academic tries to fire the absolute bullet at a portion of the whole. They aim for a mini-whole. In other words, they start wrongly. They believe they're aiming at bulls-eye, when their bulls-eye is actually off-centre. They have not seen the real target. They haven't found the real ground - the fundamental root of all assertions, all premises, all concepts. Because of this, they inevitably get caught up in target vs. bullet, mini-wholes vs mini-parts, in an infinite cycle of divisibles.

So if you find a philosophical doctrine full of categories, a veritable systematising table of divisibles, you have found a pseudo-philosopher. A shoddy craftsman who hasn't the slightest inkling of how crappy their work is. If you find a philosophical treatise full of words and thoughts about how words and thoughts tend to split and fragment, run into other thoughts, meld and blend and influence, then you have found a credulous fool who actually believes their broken-down bomb of a car is a Formula One racing car --- because it has shiny, new paint.

One starts to wonder why academic philosophers are so abundant. Is it not that they help promote bits and pieces - finitude - objects - more and more stuff - infinitely more materialities --- and thus are very helpful to those wealthy top-of-town business-owners who want the masses to buy more stuff? Awareness of the changeless nature of nonduality would make people stop hankering for more, and rest in the tranquill grounds of emptiness.

So, would the economy collapse if academic philsophers weren't selling their crapware? Who benefits by your believing this to be true?


.

prince wrote:Mwahaha! and I get accused of outbursts. :)

Leave Kelly Alone!!!

Kelly Jones wrote: would the economy collapse if academic philosophers weren't selling their crapware?

• * Metaphysics -> Religious studies
  * Epistemology -> Psychology, life sciences
  * Ethics -> Sociology, Anthropology, Religion
  * Aesthetics -> Visual and performing arts
  * Formal Logic -> Mathematics
  * Mind -> Cognitive science
  * Philosophers -> History

• The dangers that beset the evolution of the philosopher are, in fact, so manifold nowadays, that one might doubt whether this fruit could still come to maturity. The extent and towering structure of the sciences have increased enormously, and therewith also the probability that the philosopher will grow tired even as a learner, or will attach himself somewhere and “specialize” so that he will no longer attain to his elevation, that is to say, to his superspection, his circumspection, and his despection ... he dreads the temptation to become a dilettante, a millepede, a milleantenna, he knows too well that as a discerner, one who has lost his self-respect no longer commands, no longer leads, unless he should aspire to become a great play-actor, a philosophical Cagliostro [infamous occultist] and spiritual rat- catcher—in short, a misleader. (205)

• In relation to the genius, that is to say, a being who either engenders or produces—both words understood in their fullest sense—the man of learning, the scientific average man, has always something of the old maid about him; for, like her, he is not conversant with the two principal functions of man. (206)

• It is difficult to learn what a philosopher is, because it cannot be taught: one must “know” it by experience—or one should have the pride not to know it. The fact that at present people all talk of things of which they cannot have any experience, is true more especially and unfortunately as concerns the philosopher and philosophical matters:—the very few know them, are permitted to know them, and all popular ideas about them are false. Thus, for instance, the truly philosophical combination of a bold, exuberant spirituality which runs at presto pace, and a dialectic rigor and necessity which makes no false step, is unknown to most thinkers and scholars from their own experience, and therefore, should any one speak of it in their presence, it is incredible to them. -(213)

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:

Kelly Jones wrote: would the economy collapse if academic philosophers weren't selling their crapware?

Philosophy should not be anymore some separate academic discipline at all! There are elements which have their place but could be tucked into existing disciplines easily:

• * Metaphysics -> Religious studies
  * Epistemology -> Psychology, life sciences
  * Ethics -> Sociology, Anthropology, Religion
  * Aesthetics -> Visual and performing arts
  * Formal Logic -> Mathematics
  * Mind -> Cognitive science
  * Philosophers -> History

This way one will not confuse the issues of wisdom, the absolute and existence or experiencing itself with researching topics and flipping through pages, learning to pass exams or please promoters.

As it stands, the existence of the field itself - as field - raises serious question marks about how self-fulfilling, or self-satisfying it has become. Perhaps modern academic philosophers are philosophizing just to justify the existence of the category they have constructed for themselves and others.

It reminded me of Nietzsche's treatment of scholars in Beyond Good and Evil, Chapter VI: We Scholars

• The dangers that beset the evolution of the philosopher are, in fact, so manifold nowadays, that one might doubt whether this fruit could still come to maturity. The extent and towering structure of the sciences have increased enormously, and therewith also the probability that the philosopher will grow tired even as a learner, or will attach himself somewhere and “specialize” so that he will no longer attain to his elevation, that is to say, to his superspection, his circumspection, and his despection ... he dreads the temptation to become a dilettante, a millepede, a milleantenna, he knows too well that as a discerner, one who has lost his self-respect no longer commands, no longer leads, unless he should aspire to become a great play-actor, a philosophical Cagliostro [infamous occultist] and spiritual rat- catcher—in short, a misleader. (205)

• In relation to the genius, that is to say, a being who either engenders or produces—both words understood in their fullest sense—the man of learning, the scientific average man, has always something of the old maid about him; for, like her, he is not conversant with the two principal functions of man. (206)

• It is difficult to learn what a philosopher is, because it cannot be taught: one must “know” it by experience—or one should have the pride not to know it. The fact that at present people all talk of things of which they cannot have any experience, is true more especially and unfortunately as concerns the philosopher and philosophical matters:—the very few know them, are permitted to know them, and all popular ideas about them are false. Thus, for instance, the truly philosophical combination of a bold, exuberant spirituality which runs at presto pace, and a dialectic rigor and necessity which makes no false step, is unknown to most thinkers and scholars from their own experience, and therefore, should any one speak of it in their presence, it is incredible to them. -(213)

Kelly Jones wrote:One can spot a true philosopher in how they begin a thought.

The entire domain of thought is open at that point. One has not begun. There is nothing asserted, nothing taken for granted. One is neither certain about anything, nor uncertain about anything.

What does one do at that point? How does one begin to think philosophically?

Philosophical thought is absoluteness. Its function is to find complete and final definitions. It is the mind striking a blow at the whole, a bullet fired at the target of permanence. It seeks the essence, the vital character, the utter truth of.

So the only possible way to begin philosophising, the only first premise, is firing the gun of thought at the ultimate target of the whole, and seeing that the bullet is part of that target.

This is where academic philosophy always fucks up. The academic tries to fire the absolute bullet at a portion of the whole. They aim for a mini-whole. In other words, they start wrongly. They believe they're aiming at bulls-eye, when their bulls-eye is actually off-centre. They have not seen the real target. They haven't found the real ground - the fundamental root of all assertions, all premises, all concepts. Because of this, they inevitably get caught up in target vs. bullet, mini-wholes vs mini-parts, in an infinite cycle of divisibles.

So if you find a philosophical doctrine full of categories, a veritable systematising table of divisibles, you have found a pseudo-philosopher. A shoddy craftsman who hasn't the slightest inkling of how crappy their work is. If you find a philosophical treatise full of words and thoughts about how words and thoughts tend to split and fragment, run into other thoughts, meld and blend and influence, then you have found a credulous fool who actually believes their broken-down bomb of a car is a Formula One racing car --- because it has shiny, new paint.

One starts to wonder why academic philosophers are so abundant. Is it not that they help promote bits and pieces - finitude - objects - more and more stuff - infinitely more materialities --- and thus are very helpful to those wealthy top-of-town business-owners who want the masses to buy more stuff? Awareness of the changeless nature of nonduality would make people stop hankering for more, and rest in the tranquill grounds of emptiness.

So, would the economy collapse if academic philsophers weren't selling their crapware? Who benefits by your believing this to be true?


.

Kelly Jones wrote:Donna, you don't have to quote the entire text of a post. Just find the most significant idea, and respond to that one. More words say less.


...

mensa-maniac wrote:I am not envious, I am yearning for discipline, education, and truth.

jufa wrote:But in the human mind, all is never conclusive, therefore never absolute.

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:

jufa wrote:But in the human mind, all is never conclusive, therefore never absolute.

But, "the human mind" as fixed category seems very conclusive... "all" is an absolute, "never" is an absolute...

Better just accept there's no escaping from it, as the harder you try....the harder you fall.

Kelly Jones wrote:Jufa, you're making "always the case" type statements. Consider:

Never means it has not taken place
Always means it identifies with a subject of everlasting
Every means it identifies with objects that is omnipresent
Any means there is no identy specifying a point of origin
All means the totality of all the above
None means none of the above can be defined absolutely to give meaning for a solid foundation of certainty, which means none of the above are conclusive.


All statements that admit of no uncertainty whatever, profer absoluteness. They're conclusive. Even if they're not true. But all statements are always like this. Even "the cat probably escaped through the window" is absolute. If what you say is true, then one word would define their subjective/objective meaning. There is no such word.

And "the mind is never fixed" is an absolute. It's offering a truth about the nature of the mind that the speaker holds to be always and forevermore the case. If this was true, what need would there be for remembrance?

Never give power to anything a person believes is their source of strength - jufa


.