aphilosophy

[lancek4]

Perhaps, I am talking about how one might approach death in the face of life.

By noting, first, that death is inevitable. In the face of that truth, write a decent will and power of attorney, then forget about death and get on with life -- as joyfully as you can. It's infinitely more rewarding than worrying about approaching death.[/quote]

As a person who was told that without treatment I had a year to live, I know that this method worked for me.
Living your life within view of your death constantly is no life at all.
Knowing that ultimately your actions will result in the same end, can be invigorating and empowering, though.[/quote]

and I would like to add: I have delt with death; and I take both your points well. Sure, I carry on in life as best I can, as happy as I can. I am not speaking of these 'practical, methodological philsophies'. Again: one might reread the first paragraph of my essay.

If I am taking philsophy in this way, i would be prone to all sorts of religious and spiritual types of assertions, such as: "hey meditate!", "do yoga, you will find your spiritual center.", "confess your sins", " realize the oneness of the universe", "trust in jesus", "contemplate the buddah" and such things. I let others debate about those things. I do not consider valid philsophy to play upon such dependant clauses.

[Bill Wiltrack]

.



As I stated earlier within this thread...



Typist is writing with confidence.


He describes interesting insights of a philosophical nature.


Quite frankly, Typist has taken on all comers brilliantly and in-turn, a lot of members here are looking rather shallow.





Typist, I believe I can speak for all of the legitimate philosophers at the Philosophy Now Forums when I say, It is an honor to have you as an active member upon this site.


Would you consider writing a simplified, short article of your constructs for the Philosophy Now Magazine? I don't think Rick Lewis is able to pay for articles but it would be fun to see one of us with a featured article.

Perhaps you could expand upon what you began on this thread with a few real life examples thrown in for the less accomplished philosophers that are unable to embrace the philosophical scope that perhaps you and I enjoy?



Whatever you decide.

Anyway, good luck and keep writing!



.

[chaz wyman]

.



As I stated earlier within this thread...



Typist is writing with confidence.


He describes interesting insights of a philosophical nature.


Quite frankly, Typist has taken on all comers brilliantly and in-turn, a lot of members here are looking rather shallow.





Typist, I believe I can speak for all of the legitimate philosophers at the Philosophy Now Forums when I say, It is an honor to have you as an active member upon this site.


Would you consider writing a simplified, short article of your constructs for the Philosophy Now Magazine? I don't think Rick Lewis is able to pay for articles but it would be fun to see one of us with a featured article.

Perhaps you could expand upon what you began on this thread with a few real life examples thrown in for the less accomplished philosophers that are unable to embrace the philosophical scope that perhaps you and I enjoy?



Whatever you decide.

Anyway, good luck and keep writing!



.

That is a pretty transparent effort Bill.

So, Bill in your own words tell us what he's talking about!

[Thundril]

.

Typist, I believe I can speak for all of the legitimate philosophers at the Philosophy Now Forums when I say, It is an honor to have you as an active member upon this site.

.

[Bill Wiltrack]

.


Thank you Chaz for responding.


You are one of the true philosophers here and I appreciate your civility.




This thread has been about Typist and his seeming impaction of the concept of aphilosophy.


I feel that I understand the principle of aphilosophy and I am at a loss at good members here that are unable to grasp aphilosophy.


I have to side and retreat to Typist's own words.


As Typist has stated here and other threads he has explained aphilosophy in depth and to length.




I can't add or improve Typist's explanations.

I can say that it is good that people are asking questions.



.

[Arising_uk]

I'm just wondering if he's taken up my deal? As he ought to say so, else there isn't a deal.

[Arising_uk]

... I can't add or improve Typist's explanations. ...

Care to just state them then? As many of us appear below your philosophical ability and could do with some help about this 'aphilosophy'.

[chaz wyman]

I'm just wondering if he's taken up my deal? As he ought to say so, else there isn't a deal.

Is it a full moon? Does he not have to crawl back under a rock whilst the moon in full?

[Bill Wiltrack]

.



Respectfully, I must say that we seem to be a bit harsh upon our fellow member Typist.



I think if we just re-read Typist's posts even just within this thread and RELAX we may be able to better understand the principles of aphilosophy.



It may sound like a koan but if you can understand aphilosophy that's great.

If you are unable to understand the principle of aphilosophy, that too is great.



Cheers.



.

[chaz wyman]

.



Respectfully, I must say that we seem to be a bit harsh upon our fellow member Typist.



I think if we just re-read Typist's posts even just within this thread and RELAX we may be able to better understand the principles of aphilosophy.



It may sound like a koan but if you can understand aphilosophy that's great.

If you are unable to understand the principle of aphilosophy, that too is great.



Cheers.



.

Take a closer look Bill. If he answered any questions put to him , then maybe I would not be so harsh.
But what really gets me about Typist, is that he said he was going to put me on ignore, but all he does is make little sniping comments from the side-lines without engaging in the discussions.

[lancek4]

A quick little side trail....

Another post on the forum reminded me to learn more about Wittgenstein, something I've been working on inch by inch. I found this on Wikipedia...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophi ... stigations

Through such thought experiments, Wittgenstein attempts to get the reader to come to certain philosophical conclusions independently; he does not simply argue in favor of his own conclusions. These approaches can be very effective and rewarding, but it can also make Wittgenstein's philosophy difficult to grasp.

This reminded me of the writing style of one of my influences (in regards to aphilosophy), Jiddu Krishnamurti.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jiddu_Krishnamurti

Many readers have also found Krishnamurti difficult to grasp, for much the same reason. He doesn't simply drop the punchlines in your lap, it's more a matter of creating an atmosphere conducive to the listeners's own explorations.

The student comes looking for the bottom line, and Krishnamurti may bounce the ball back in their lap by saying something like, "Ah, that's an interesting question you pose. So, what do you think?"

An example might be a comparison between say, western music and Indian music.

Western music is linear. Like traveling a straight line from beginning, to middle, to end. I'm guessing this style of music reflects the nature of the thought-centric western mind. We can see thought is always traveling, on it's way from A to B, the past to the future, in movement towards some goal etc.

Indian music seems to have (no expert here) a different geometry. It seems more circular. It seems to create an environment which the listener is invited to enter and experience. We aren't going somewhere else, we're already here.

Western music is like hiking down the trail, while Indian music seems more like sitting under the pear tree and listening to the birds.

The point of all this is....

Making a 180 degree turn in to a fundamentally different paradigm seems to involve various writing challenges, which may frustrate both reader and writer.

Philosophy is much like western music, linear. A journey from A to B.

aPhilosophy is more like eastern music, circular. Not a journey, but the opposite of a journey, a decision to stop hiking and sit down inside an environment, and just be there.

So, part of the challenge we face is that we're trying to use a straight line to describe a circle. We're trying to hike earnestly forward in to sitting in one place. We're trying to use philosophy, to describe it's opposite.

After bill's repost, I had to go back and look at what Typist might be saying, in that I might regret that I may have based my critique of Typist based upon what others have said of his argument.
so I noticed this previous post from pg one of this thread.

I too have read J Krishnamurti and I remember being particularly amused how how says the same thing over and over but with different examples.

I think my essay and subsequent discussions with Chaz in this thread, say as much as Typist is implying.

My disagreement with Typist as I understand him, is that I tend away from the more "Zen" type assertions that his aphilsophical propostions seem to be moving toward. I feel there is a next step in argument once the 'substance' of aphilsophy is realized, as through the method of Krishnamurti.

We cannot stop as religious type "just be one with the universe" proposition. There Is more. If we must stop at aphilsophy then what is the point of proposing an aphilosophy? And it cannot be something absolutly personal -- can it?

I think I understand what Typist is trying to say, but, I agree: Typist, please present us with a more complete exegesis of your position on aphilsophy. Or tell us where one might read something of yours.

[lancek4]

error

[lancek4]

Uhh.. i keep getting 'internal server error' weh I submit. what the hell is that?

[lancek4]

So, maybe aphilsophy is something one must come upon oneself or it just means nothing.
In fact, maybe that is what it is: nothing.
But if it is something, it cant be an end summation.

[Bill Wiltrack]

.


I see your point Chaz.


I am skeptical of any member who feels that they need to put a fellow member on ignore. I think it is disrespectful of our positions here. Each of us has an opinion.


Chaz Wyman is one of the most legitimate, if not THE MOST legitimate and respected members here.



I did not know Typist was doing that.



I have been under the impression that Typist has undergone a remarkable, philosophically based transformation over the past few months.


Up until now I have been extremely impressed by him of late.





.