aphilosophy

[Arising_uk]

...
I hope I may gently suggest that crusading against theism on forums full of atheists is not a fully logical endeavor. Just as crusading for aphilosphy on a philosophy forum is not.

More of your blind and deafness as this forum has about an equal amount of believers and non-believers. Its just that you only see and hear what you wish to. Ever thought of applying your pet theories to yourself? If you can't then what point us adopting them? What psychological need are you satisfying with your behaviour?

[Mark Question]

i was wondering about your responsibility if you keep insisting people to just try aphilosophy, do you?
what if, someone says: just try aliving! you dont know what is it really to be dead if you dont try it and just kill yourself.
what do you think about that?
and what else there are that we havent done yet? murder? torturing? child abuse? rape? bank robbery?..i bet theres people who have done those things and love to do more. but still i am hesitating to follow them or you, why oh why!?

.
There is nothing to 'try'. Any quality with an 'a-' prefix, means that it is what ever philosophy is not; contentless. Many on this site have been trying to tell Typist that for over a year with atheism, but she won't believe us.
As philosophy does not believe in anything, there is not even a thing not to believe in aphilosophy.

i was reading somewhere HERE also a hidden argument that philosophers are believers, they believe in, put their fate in philosophy? or was it even hidden argument? in that context, i would wonder if philosophy is then more like aaphilosophy, pretending not to believe itself, its way of BE it?
hallelujah!

What is philosophy? What is it literally? Thought.
aPhilosophy is "a-thought"

is it? what is thought? is there any thoughts?

[Typist]

Ever thought that the meaning of your words is the response they get?

You think bold and a larger font makes your answer any more true or coherent?

Again with your assumptions!

What makes you think I haven't 'done it', whatever this 'it' is? What makes you think that I'm not here now?

That I don't come to a philosophy forum and write incoherent contradictory statements?

That I don't talk the new-age waffle that you do?

That I've studied philosophy as well?

That I don't make assumptions about others nor think I can mindread?

That I ask questions about what others claim?

That all I ask is for you to say what you think "thought" and "thinking" are? A simple description will do, try John Locke.

You talk much about these things and how we should stop doing them, all I ask is what meaning you have for them? It'd be the least I thought you could do given what you say.

be here now...

[Typist]

More of your blind and deafness as this forum has about an equal amount of believers and non-believers. Its just that you only see and hear what you wish to. Ever thought of applying your pet theories to yourself? If you can't then what point us adopting them? What psychological need are you satisfying with your behaviour?

be here now...

[Arising_uk]

I am.

Apparently you're still back in the 70's. Have you achieved yogidom boo boo and this is your attempt to become a guru?

Why not follow your authors approaches and become dattaswami's chella as he appears to be the closest to a guru we have here.

[Typist]

Our exchanges are a very common dynamic that's happened millions of times in the history of aphilosophy.

Somebody says "be here now".

Being here now means giving our full attention to reality in this moment.

Giving our full attention to reality involves withdrawing our attention from the symbol world inside our heads.

This isn't esoteric or complicated. It's just like turning off the TV so we can give our attention to a conversation. It's just a choice to focus on one thing instead of another, that's all. It's a choice to temporarily not divide our attention between the real world and the symbol world, ie thought.

To some people, this sounds like some kind of interesting adventure, or perhaps an intriguing curiosity, and so they are drawn to the conversation.

Shortly in to the conversation they realize they are being asked to take a break from thought.

And then, somewhere deep inside, an alarm bell goes off.

Uh oh, the "me", our most precious possession, is made entirely of thought. Thus, taking a break from thought is a form of death.

The "me" now starts scrambling around looking for an escape.

Some people get up and walk out of the room.

Others are torn between their curiosity and their fear. What usually happens here is that the "me" cooks up a clever strategy to have it's cake and eat it too. The "me" says...

"Hey, instead of being here now, let's talk about being here now. Let's analyze it!"

The "me" is hoping to circle around the cookie jar and steal little bites, without having to pay the price of dying.

And so the questions begin.

And every answer, leads to another question.

This question and answer game can go on for years, decades, an entire life time.

So if you are a fierce zenmaster Yogidom Boo Boo, you may try to help the reader perform an act of clear thinking. The suggestion may arise....

"Shit, or get off the pot."

"Make up your fucking mind."

If you're interested, try it. If you care to, share what you experience.

If you're not interested, drop it, and find something else you are interested in.

Either of these choices is good.

Staying stuck between the choices forever is a waste of time, and an act of quite unclear thinking.

[Typist]

I have suggested repeatedly that you forget all about me and aphilosophy concepts, and accept reality as your authority instead.

But, you keep coming back to me with questions. Over and over and over again.

Who is creating the Yogidom Boo Boo?

[chaz wyman]

Dear Arising,
I do so hope you are having fun.

[Arising_uk]

It's a laugh a minute chaz.

[Typist]

Chaz, do you accept my authority as the Supreme Holy Yogidom Boo Boo??

[Arising_uk]

Our exchanges are a very common dynamic that's happened millions of times in the history of aphilosophy.

What history of 'aphilosophy'? You mean the religious practices from the East? The judeo/christian/islamic practices? The bodged-up new-age 'spirituality' interpretations of the bourgeois westerner? The wiccans? The warlocks?

Somebody says "be here now".

Being here now means giving our full attention to reality in this moment.

I am.

Giving our full attention to reality involves withdrawing our attention from the symbol world inside our heads.

Not necessarily, this is but one state of being that is possible to the human language user.

This isn't esoteric or complicated. It's just like turning off the TV so we can give our attention to a conversation. It's just a choice to focus on one thing instead of another, that's all. It's a choice to temporarily not divide our attention between the real world and the symbol world, ie thought.

What 'real' world? The one you find when you do what you say? This appears to be the bodys senses without the re-presentation of memory. Or are you a 'shut your eyes' kind of meditator?

To some people, this sounds like some kind of interesting adventure, or perhaps an intriguing curiosity, and so they are drawn to the conversation.

Shortly in to the conversation they realize they are being asked to take a break from thought.

And then, somewhere deep inside, an alarm bell goes off.

Uh oh, the "me", our most precious possession, is made entirely of thought. Thus, taking a break from thought is a form of death.

The "me" now starts scrambling around looking for an escape.

Some people get up and walk out of the room.

Others are torn between their curiosity and their fear. What usually happens here is that the "me" cooks up a clever strategy to have it's cake and eat it too. The "me" says...

Lots of assumptions about others again. You mean this is what happens or has happened to you.

"Hey, instead of being here now, let's talk about being here now. Let's analyze it!"

Or lets go on a philosophy forum and talk shite about it. Lets demonstrate that after "being here now" we can talk about things like philosophy with no actual knowledge of what we are talking about.

The "me" is hoping to circle around the cookie jar and steal little bites, without having to pay the price of dying.

And so the questions begin.

And every answer, leads to another question.

This question and answer game can go on for years, decades, an entire life time.

Not if you think about the questions and come-up with some reasonable answers rather than keep parroting what you've heard.

So if you are a fierce zenmaster Yogidom Boo Boo, you may try to help the reader perform an act of clear thinking. The suggestion may arise....

"Shit, or get off the pot."

"Make up your fucking mind."

If you're interested, try it. If you care to, share what you experience.

If you're not interested, drop it, and find something else you are interested in.

Either of these choices is good.

NLP says 'either choices' are no choice at all.

I have no truck with being a "zenmaster" nor a bear.

I've already told you and others what to study if they wish to have what we call the "stopping the world" state or the "uptime" state of being, which whilst not the same as the eastern practices at least come the closest from what I've experienced and are actually clear and achievable. If they want a description and epistemology that fits the western mindset to a tee when it comes to what the gnus rabbit about but never provide techniques for, then look no further than New Code NLP, if they just want to achieve their goals or discover what those goals might be then NLP alone should be fine. What you appear to ignore in your search for the fast pill is that the states you appear to attempt to describe also have practices, i.e. you're supposed to practice Yoga until you have stilled your body enough to do what you say, 4-5 years, every other day but optimally every day, may get you somewhere near where you need to be to gain what they say you can from 'being here now'.

http://nlpuniversitypress.com/

The thing with NLP tho' is you actually have to do it to learn it, so its really only optimal when there are two or more of you. So find a friend.

Why don't I feed you my answers to all this? Because you're the kind of knob who'll then say, "thats exactly what 'aphilosophy' says" and I can't be arsed to do your work, if your aim is to impart states of being that may be of use to others that is.

Try starting with John Locke's theory of mind for an approach to describing things so others can understand, but I'd give the tabula rasa a miss, as I think this was introduced for other reasons and Kant and others pretty much put the kibosh upon this. Or try Ouspensky and Gurdjieff for a more interesting approach to such matters.

Staying stuck between the choices forever is a waste of time, and an act of quite unclear thinking.

I'll take your word for it.

[Typist]

Try starting with John Locke's theory of mind for an approach to describing things so others can understand...

This isn't about understanding, it's about taking a break from understanding.

You want to think, consider, analyze, debate, compare, etc. That's philosophy. There's nothing wrong with philosophy, it's just not aphilosophy, that's all.

The aphilosophy experience is the opposite of the philosophy experience.

A-philosophy. Get it?

So every question you ask, every analysis you do, every debate position you take, every comparison you make, is a step away from this topic, not a step deeper in to it.

[artisticsolution]

Try starting with John Locke's theory of mind for an approach to describing things so others can understand...

This isn't about understanding, it's about taking a break from understanding.

You want to think, consider, analyze, debate, compare, etc. That's philosophy. There's nothing wrong with philosophy, it's just not aphilosophy, that's all.

The aphilosophy experience is the opposite of the philosophy experience.

A-philosophy. Get it?

So every question you ask, every analysis you do, every debate position you take, every comparison you make, is a step away from this topic, not a step deeper in to it.

So then there is no point in discussing aphilosophy because it's nothingness?

So then we can say all there is to say about aphilospophy in one symbol:

[...]

(brackets containing meaningless nothing)

Where there is aphilosophy there is no discussion or thought.

[Typist]

So then there is no point in discussing aphilosophy because it's nothingness?

The only point in discussing it is to alert those who may not know that's it's possible to explore outside of thought.

Once that's shared, then the discussion of the subject quickly becomes a way to put off the exploration.

So then we can say all there is to say about aphilospophy in one symbol:

[...]

(brackets containing meaningless nothing)

I like it, you've been hired as the Betsy Ross to make our flag!

Where there is aphilosophy there is no discussion or thought.

Where there are aphilosophy concepts, there is no aphilosophy experience.

Without the aphilosophy experience, aphilosophy concepts are worthless, except as a form of trivial entertainment, like the TV show Jeopardy.

[Arising_uk]

The aphilosophy experience is the opposite of the philosophy experience.

How would you know!? Given that you've said that you've not done any.

Heard of Phenomenology? Heard of Ouspensky or Gurdjieff, Husserl, Heidegger, Merleau-Ponty, Grinder or Bandler?