aphilosophy

[Arising_uk]

NLP - its simple

p.s.
You can do this pretty much anywhere but if you do it in a city or an 'unsafe' area its best to do it with someone with you at first or read in the nlp encyclopedia about setting-up triggers or arrangements to notify you about danger, else you might not recognise that really interesting arrangement of red thats growing in your vision, at least in London, so substitute whatever colour of bus or tram you like.
p.p.s
Oh! And don't forget to have an outcome to notice or you'll be getting nowhere.

[Bill Wiltrack]

.



Both The Spirit of Now and the Simples sites are interesting.


Thank you Ron & Arising_uk.



.

[evangelicalhumanist]

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.

Okay, interesting. Yes, I can see that “taking a break from understanding” might have its usefulness. After all, our perceptions of the world are only enhanced as we use different senses, different tools and means if you will, to perceive it. The food in front of me grows more (or possibly less ) interesting as I involve my sight, my sense of smell, my taste – not to mention my imagination, my memory of similar items, my hunger, even my own anticipation. Perhaps, even, my appreciation for the person who prepared it for me. But sometimes, to simply just savour that dish of caramelized port pears with stilton cream is enough all on its own. (Ask me, if you want the recipe. It's amazing!)

So, I would agree (as I’ve said before in the context of music) that turning thinking off and just trying to experience can provide another perspective, an alternative way to perceive. And “living in the moment” can have its (very brief, I Ithink) rewards as well, I’m sure. But neither is ever enough, not nearly enough by the very longest of shots. The fellow who lives entirely and permanently in the moment will not do well, I promise. All of human life requires some appreciation for moments (past and future) that are not currently being experienced. Even the eastern monk seeking enlightment, when tending his garden, is living in another moment – one that anticipates eating the produce later.

So then, when artisticsolution suggests that “there is no point in discussing aphilosophy because it's nothingness,” I would disagree, but I would understand where (s)he’s coming from. The problem is that you don’t seem to position aphilosophy as one (and perhaps a not-overly-important) tool in the chest that we use to perceive, appreciate, understand, know, enjoy or perhaps even fear our world. The very idea of a “philosophy” (or, of course, an “aphilosophy”) would seem to suggest a consistent approach to grokking stuff, rather than just another means of access. After all, there are things that simply cannot be grokked without using thought -- several good math functions spring rapidly to mind.

[Typist]

Okay, interesting. Yes, I can see that “taking a break from understanding” might have its usefulness.

It's a yin / yang kinda thing, with understanding and "break from understanding" complementing each other, and together forming a holistic unified system. Like male and female, day and night, up and down, etc. Something, and nothing.

But sometimes, to simply just savour that dish of caramelized port pears with stilton cream is enough all on its own.

That's it, yes, enough. Very important.

Reality is fulfilling. Reality already contains everything we need psychologically. Making the direct connection creates a sense of "enoughness" in the mind.

If you wish, this can be seen as a positive affirmation of atheism, transforming atheism in to something more than a mere rejection of somebody else's ideas.

Reality rocks, is fantastic all by itself, far better and bigger than anything anybody could say about it.

Thought is always on the move, searching high and low for this "enoughness" everywhere it goes. The problem is that it's thought itself that is obscuring the "enoughness" that already exists. And so thought tries harder. Which pushes the "enoughness" even farther away. The end result is the kind of frantic civilization we are currently living in. Lots and lots of activity, and lots and lots of empty lives.

Part of my proposal to you is that if more folks had more "enoughness" there'd be less need for religion. Religion is a means to an end. Meet the ends by some other method, and religion is no longer needed.

Like giving a drug user another way to get high. The drugs are just the surface level, merely a means. It's the high they want.

The fundamental flaw in atheism is the same flaw found in theism. It tries to address the problem with thought. It tries to put out the fire by poring more gasoline on the flames, and thus becomes part of the very process it rejects.

And “living in the moment” can have its (very brief, I Ithink) rewards as well, I’m sure.

Life is full of drama of various kinds. Imagine that we have a safe zone that we know we can retreat to any time the drama gets out of hand. Just knowing that safe zone exists makes the drama much less threatening, much less dramatic.

Thus, "living in the moment" can have impact far beyond that moment. It's not necessary to be in the moment every moment, we only need to know how to get there as the situation requires.

I like to suggest that everybody have some phase in their life where they meditate four or five hours day, for awhile. Not to reach nirvana and all that stuff. Forget all that. Just to know what's there, and how to get back there if one wants to, or needs to.

It's like having a case of wine in the cellar. No need to drink it all day every day. But it's nice to have it there when you want it, or need it.

The problem is that you don’t seem to position aphilosophy as one (and perhaps a not-overly-important) tool in the chest that we use to perceive, appreciate, understand, know, enjoy or perhaps even fear our world.

I'm am positioning aphilosophy as the mirror image of philosophy.

One's interest in philosophy be a casual browsing of books on the bookstore shelf, or a quick scroll through a philosophy forum. Or that interest can grow in to a serious life long exploration. And no matter how serious we might be, there's no reaching the end of it.

The same is true of aphilosophy. It can be just a fun little game, or a profound life long journey of exploration. And no matter how serious we might be, there's no reaching the end of it.

That is, aphilosophy is as big as philosophy, as important, as interesting. If we choose to ignore aphilosophy, we are ignoring fully half the picture.

If we return to reality, use it as our authority, and listen to what it is saying, we can reasonably propose that nothing is far bigger than something.

The stars and planets are immeasurably small compared to the space that surrounds them. The space surrounding atomic particles vastly exceeds the atomic particles themselves.

Nothing is a really big deal.

aPhilosophy is an exploration of nothing.

[melonkali]

Dude...

[Thundril]

Typist, I like your idea of 'enoughness'. I have for quite a while been arguing for 'Nuffism'.
The problem with consumerism is that it pretends the sky will fall down if we all decide to stop 'consuming' stuff we don't really need. Why shouldn't we reclaim/revivify the concept of 'enough'?

[chaz wyman]

Dude...

Great image!

A baby and a dead donkey.

[chaz wyman]

Typist, I like your idea of 'enoughness'. I have for quite a while been arguing for 'Nuffism'.
The problem with consumerism is that it pretends the sky will fall down if we all decide to stop 'consuming' stuff we don't really need. Why shouldn't we reclaim/revivify the concept of 'enough'?

Typist has no sense of 'enough is enough'.

She goes on and on and on......

[Typist]

I can't figure out if I'm the baby, or the ass. I'm sure some poster will help me solve this vexing riddle.

[Arising_uk]

...
If we return to reality, use it as our authority, and listen to what it is saying, we can reasonably propose that nothing is far bigger than something.

The stars and planets are immeasurably small compared to the space that surrounds them. The space surrounding atomic particles vastly exceeds the atomic particles themselves.

Nothing is a really big deal.

How do you deal with this contradiction with your thought that every something is actually one thing?

aPhilosophy is an exploration of nothing.

Never a truer word.

[Rortabend]

Surely talking about aphilosophy on a philosophy forum is precisely the sort of thing that aphilosophers should eschew. To all you aphilosophers out there - go and do some gardening!

[chaz wyman]

Surely talking about aphilosophy on a philosophy forum is precisely the sort of thing that aphilosophers should eschew. To all you aphilosophers out there - go and do some gardening!

Wise words

[Typist]

How do you deal with this contradiction with your thought that every something is actually one thing?

From seeing the quote you're replying to, I think I know what you're asking, but before I answer, let's see if I do.

Could you try a rephrase please?

[chaz wyman]

I can't figure out if I'm the baby, or the ass. I'm sure some poster will help me solve this vexing riddle.

Yes, the top half of the ass is you and the bottom half and the baby.

[chaz wyman]

...
If we return to reality, use it as our authority, and listen to what it is saying, we can reasonably propose that nothing is far bigger than something.

The stars and planets are immeasurably small compared to the space that surrounds them. The space surrounding atomic particles vastly exceeds the atomic particles themselves.

Nothing is a really big deal.

How do you deal with this contradiction with your thought that every something is actually one thing?

aPhilosophy is an exploration of nothing.

Never a truer word.

Is the 'nothing' quote from Typist??
The irony is great. I seem to remember spending 3 months trying to tell Typist that Atheism is an exploration of nothing, but he kept on insisting that atheism was a belief system!
What a mind fuck,