aphilosophy

[Typist]

So, after a million and a half posts, aPhilosophy is just meditation.

So, after a million and a half posts aPhilosophy is, to me, just everything I talked about in the million and a half posts.

Why, I wonder, does it need a separate name?

I called it aphilosophy on whim to compare it to philosophy, and the name seems to have stuck. I don't care what you call it.

And why didn't you just say so?

The better question is, why did I bother to say anything? I don't have a good answer for that one.

[evangelicalhumanist]

So, after a million and a half posts, aPhilosophy is just meditation.

So, after a million and a half posts aPhilosophy is, to me, just everything I talked about in the million and a half posts.

Why, I wonder, does it need a separate name?

I called it aphilosophy on whim to compare it to philosophy, and the name seems to have stuck. I don't care what you call it.

And why didn't you just say so?

The better question is, why did I bother to say anything? I don't have a good answer for that one.

And an even better question, Typist, is why we couldn't all just talk to one another, rather than at one another. The moment we strike attitudes, the moment we take positions, we are constrained to defend them. When we ask one another what we mean, and when we try to answer as best we can those who ask us what we mean, the more likely we are to actually have a dialogue that's win-win, from which we both learn.

Going back over this debate, that's been what's missing. You've been accused of being secretive with what it is you really meant, but you never really simply answered that criticism. The best sort of answer to that sort of thing, by the way, is usually to try and understand what your interlocutor has not understood, and to try to explain it (as well as you are able) in the terms and context in which he expressed his lack of understanding.

But of course, that all assumes that the goal is dialogue and understanding. Unfortunately, I've found that far too often, that's not the goal at all. One of the reasons I'm such a fan of David Hume. He got it.

I continue to hope that one day we will find a way to talk to each other. I've no doubt you have something of interest to say, and I flatter myself (perhaps without warrant) to suppose that I'm not completely bereft in that regard.

[Ron de Weijze]

Hat-tip to the way you two now respectfully talk to each other. Sensitive to positive changes in your dialog.

[lancek4]

I respect how EH has indeed attepmted to meet typist half way, and acheieved that, I think, earlier with the aesthetic poetic experience thing.
I like to think I also have attempted to open a space for dialogue.

I am astounded, though, that we spent so long on something everyone knew. Just so we could get Typist to admit his position, though he had many times. I think the rest of us had to get tired of making fun of him. And I think we only did this because we know what he is saying.

I for one was hoping there was something more.

So I offered something more which, I feel,. Has to do with exactly that aesthetic space that Typist (annd others it seems) want to leave to. "Oooohhhhhmmmmmm".

Ohm is great. It is just fine. I know what it is. I know how to practice meditation.

But I do not think this space holds some 'essentiality' of the matter. In this frame I have proposed 'aphilosophy'.

[Typist]

And an even better question, Typist, is why we couldn't all just talk to one another, rather than at one another.

We've discussed this before. I'm doubtful whether another visit will accomplish anything, but ok, I'll play along.

There are two levels to most ideological discussions on forums. On the surface level is the self flattering cover story, that the discussion is about profound intellectual inquiry. Underneath the cover story is the reality, that the majority of such threads are driven by various emotional agendas.

Most intellectual threads are populated by we men, who are emotionally unsophisticated at the best, and down right dishonest chickenshits about our real motivations at the worst.

So, there's your explanation.

We will now proceed directly to the bunkum fantasy rationalizations section of our program.

The moment we strike attitudes, the moment we take positions, we are constrained to defend them.

aPhilosophy could be an exploration of the experience of surrendering the positions. There is actually very little rational reason any of us should have opinions on these topics, given that we don't intend to do anything useful with our beliefs. This idea I have that I will teach you aphilosophy, or that you will convert theists to your point of view etc, it's all silly fantasy.

If we are willing to face the fact that we are immature men indulging in silly fantasy, then we could continue the discussion based on reality, and enjoy typing for the sake of typing, much as one might play a game of tennis.

Going back over this debate, that's been what's missing. You've been accused of being secretive with what it is you really meant, but you never really simply answered that criticism.

What's been missing is any sign of real interest, seriousness, intelligence or honesty by the rest of you. The lot of you, boring me to tears.

I've answered the question many times, including 2 posts back, and you don't like the answer. That's the reality.

I don't mind that you don't like the answer, and don't wish to find out for yourself. That's each reader's own personal business.

But this ridiculous nonsense about me not answering the question, which has now become the dominant theme of thread, is endlessly repeated SILLY GIBBERISH which proves to me I myself am also being very silly for endlessly answering the same stupid question over and over again.

Apparently, I fit right in here. As you can see, coming face to face with that reality fills me with rage.

Here we go, yet one more time....

DEAR CLUELESS MORONS, YOU'RE NEVER GOING TO LEARN ANYTHING USEFUL ABOUT APHILOSOPHY BY ASKING ME QUESTIONS.

The best sort of answer to that sort of thing, by the way, is usually to try and understand what your interlocutor has not understood, and to try to explain it (as well as you are able) in the terms and context in which he expressed his lack of understanding.

Except that...

aPhilosophy is NOT philosophy, which has been explained endlessly, again and again and again. Do you have a giant turd in your ear, or what???

I continue to hope that one day we will find a way to talk to each other.

Or, maybe this...

Imagine we all meet at somebody's house, and are gathered around the living room.

We could jump in to the same discussions we have here..

Or...

We could spend the evening sitting quietly, saying nothing, looking across the table at each other.

Which is more interesting? Which is more challenging? Which is more likely to be reality based?

Philosophy, or aphilosophy?

[lancek4]

Typist, this is exactly (as I had felt) where our 'aphilosophys' intersect: "exposing our position".

If you would go back in this thread, especialy when me and Chaz were exchanging, you mite see that this is what I am attpempting to expose. But not just his...

I feel (felt) that you take 'the emotional limitations' as being the end to discussion, as if we have only the recourse of zen-ning out in our Self s.

If the limitation is true, then We should attempt to expose what this limit might be Between us, since the limitation is noticeable. This is why is have repeatedly asked at certain times in discussion: what are 'you' withholding in the (whatever) proposition?. What is the bias that is occurring.?

With this in mind, perhaps you (and other) mite reread my essay 'aphilosophy to die for'. There is a couple links in this thread.

If we are limited as you propose than you in your expression are likeiwse limited, as am I. Thus it is not an easy matter. We must be vigilant, humble and never stop - even at my/your limits.

[lancek4]

Perhaps we could start by not bringing into the dialectic our polemical attitudes. Or trying not to.

[Arising_uk]

...
There are two levels to most ideological discussions on forums. On the surface level is the self flattering cover story, that the discussion is about profound intellectual inquiry. Underneath the cover story is the reality, that the majority of such threads are driven by various emotional agendas.

Most intellectual threads are populated by we men, who are emotionally unsophisticated at the best, and down right dishonest chickenshits about our real motivations at the worst.

So can you apply this 'insight' to yourself? What real motivation drives you to write here upon this forum? What emotional agenda do you have here?

So, there's your explanation.

Not quite if your 'theory' is true.

We will now proceed directly to the bunkum fantasy rationalizations section of our program. - Let's

aPhilosophy could be an exploration of the experience of surrendering the positions. There is actually very little rational reason any of us should have opinions on these topics, given that we don't intend to do anything useful with our beliefs. - An assumption upon your part. This idea I have that I will teach you aphilosophy, or that you will convert theists to your point of view etc, it's all silly fantasy. - I've 'converted' one theist, accidentally mind you, was just chatting to his gnu. But I agree you won't be teaching any 'aphilosophy' as its a mess of a term as it does not even understand what it prefixes before it tries to negate it.

If we are willing to face the fact that we are immature men indulging in silly fantasy, then we could continue the discussion based on reality, and enjoy typing for the sake of typing, much as one might play a game of tennis. - So all your words are silly fantasy? But lets say they are, so what would you wish to talk about? Do you think you are winning this 'game' then? And if you just type for the sake of typing why do it upon a philsosophy forum rather than just a general chat room? Better still, you should just write into a word processor, you may get a book out of it.

What's been missing is any sign of real interest, seriousness, intelligence or honesty by the rest of you. The lot of you, boring me to tears.

Whats-up? Tiring of the game?

I've answered the question many times, including 2 posts back, and you don't like the answer. That's the reality.

Or you don't like the replies?

I don't mind that you don't like the answer, and don't wish to find out for yourself. That's each reader's own personal business.

All I've ever asked you is how you've come to your 'enlightenment'? What did you actually do?

But this ridiculous nonsense about me not answering the question, which has now become the dominant theme of thread, is endlessly repeated SILLY GIBBERISH which proves to me I myself am also being very silly for endlessly answering the same stupid question over and over again.

Well maybe for not coming-up with a better way of saying what you mean. But then, as you say, you don't actually mean anything. You're just typing for effect or fun or play.

Apparently, I fit right in here. As you can see, coming face to face with that reality fills me with rage.

Here we go, yet one more time....

DEAR CLUELESS MORONS, YOU'RE NEVER GOING TO LEARN ANYTHING USEFUL ABOUT APHILOSOPHY BY ASKING ME QUESTIONS.

I agree but its fun watching you pretend there is actually something behind your denials.

Except that...

aPhilosophy is NOT philosophy, which has been explained endlessly, again and again and again. Do you have a giant turd in your ear, or what???

But you've said you don't know what philsophy is? Why not try explaining what issues of philosophy your 'aphilosophy' addresses?

Or, maybe this...

Imagine we all meet at somebody's house, and are gathered around the living room.

We could jump in to the same discussions we have here..

Or...

We could spend the evening sitting quietly, saying nothing, looking across the table at each other.

Which is more interesting? Which is more challenging? Which is more likely to be reality based?

Philosophy, or aphilosophy?

Depends? Did we all gather to meditate? Practice some kind of mind states?

[evangelicalhumanist]

And an even better question, Typist, is why we couldn't all just talk to one another, rather than at one another.

We've discussed this before. I'm doubtful whether another visit will accomplish anything, but ok, I'll play along.

There are two levels to most ideological discussions on forums. On the surface level is the self flattering cover story, that the discussion is about profound intellectual inquiry. Underneath the cover story is the reality, that the majority of such threads are driven by various emotional agendas.

Most intellectual threads are populated by we men, who are emotionally unsophisticated at the best, and down right dishonest chickenshits about our real motivations at the worst.

So, there's your explanation.

Well, it's unfortunate that you have such low esteem for we lowly posters-on-the-internet. It saddens me more that you assign those attitudes to me as well, but c'est la vie.

I'm going to step out of character here for a moment, and point you somewhere else -- somewhere (not mine) that more than 4 years ago I began a dialogue (entitled "Trial Balloon") dedicated to precisely the opposite of what you accuse me of. After more than 4 years, that dialogue still gets a little action -- and there is a very great deal of me in it. Look, if you would, especially to my second post in that sub-forum, in which I talk about my own vision for a way for humans of different beliefs to dialogue and understand one another. Then note some of the threads that I started in that forum: "Where do we find common ground?" or "Step 3: A Central Question," or "Removing the toxicity of both religion and atheism."

Those are mine, Typist, and they express my essential faith in mankind, that we can -- if we desire to -- find ways to survive and thrive together. It is, I confess, just a little bit hurtful that you ascribe all of that hard work to a selfish desire to flatter myself or satisfy an emotional agenda -- though to the extent I'd actually like us to stop hating one another, that last is somewhat true.

It is true that my own view is that we cannot find "common ground" while any of us supposes that they hold an incontrovertible Truth that must be accepted by everybody "or else" (or else we'll go to war and kill you, or else we'll excommunicate and burn you, or else God will send you and everybody you care about to hell). It is also true that I feel that religion and certainty over political dogma are probably the two areas most likely to lead us away from common ground.

I'm not going to try and pretend that I'm that great rarity, the person whose emotions don't colour his views, or who is able to completely divorce his own preconceptions, beliefs and desires from his thinking. I'm not. But I make an honest effort to be at least honest. I'm imperfect, as are we all, but I hope to hell I'm not as black as you continually try to paint us all.

[lancek4]

EH, I will check it out.

[Typist]

Hi again EH,

A variety of responses...

It is, I confess, just a little bit hurtful...

Who is it that is doing the hurting you speak of? To answer this question, let's be both simple and precise.

Where exactly is this hurting you speak of physically located? The brain of EH. Who is in charge of the brain of EH? EH. So, who is doing the hurting inside of EH's brain? EH of course, as no one else has the ability to decide how EH will experience the world.

One of the benefits of aphilosophy is that it creates a space where thoughts can be observed more clearly, simply because there are fewer thoughts to observe.

You observe the internet, and see that Typist is being a rude jerk. Again! Here come the words from Typist. You watch them enter your mind. You watch them bounce around inside your head. You watch them leave, and be replaced by other thoughts. Here they come, here they are, here they go. Like watching train cars roll down the track in front of you.

Once you have enough space in your mind to be able to see yourself grasp the Typist words, and use these rude words to hurt yourself, something important that you already know becomes clearer.

You have a choice. If you want to be hurt, you can choose that. If you want to watch the rude words come and go, you can choose that too. It's your mind, your right, your call, you can do whatever you want in there.

The prize is freedom from other people's problems, and the price tag is the surrender of victim status.

that you ascribe all of that hard work to a selfish desire to flatter myself or satisfy an emotional agenda --

Do you observe how you took a comment directed randomly at all members of the thread, and made it all about you personally? Welcome to your emotional agenda.

....though to the extent I'd actually like us to stop hating one another, that last is somewhat true.

I know you sincerely believe this about yourself. And I will believe it too, once you stop randomly tossing ignorant hate at billions of theists you've never met.

It is true that my own view is that we cannot find "common ground" while any of us supposes that they hold an incontrovertible Truth that must be accepted by everybody "or else"

So, to honor your own point of view, you will now do the only thing that is really within your power, and surrender your own incontrovertible Truths. But, before you can get to that, you'll have to give up the fantasy that you aren't part of the thing you keep rejecting.

I'm not going to try and pretend that I'm that great rarity, the person whose emotions don't colour his views, or who is able to completely divorce his own preconceptions, beliefs and desires from his thinking. I'm not.

Me neither of course.

But I make an honest effort to be at least honest.

A project I'm always here to help you with, because I am such a generous and kind person.

[evangelicalhumanist]

I know you sincerely believe this about yourself. And I will believe it too, once you stop randomly tossing ignorant hate at billions of theists you've never met.

Please show me that "ignorant hate" I've tossed. Is it ignorant hate to not believe something that someone else believes? Is it ignorant hate to admit that you don't believe it to them? If you can find examples where my comments have slopped over into "ignorant hate," with no justification, then I must of course apologize.

[Typist]

I've already explained this many times and it has no effect on you whatsoever.

[evangelicalhumanist]

I've already explained this many times and it has no effect on you whatsoever.

It may surprise you to learn that my memory is not perfect, that I engage in many dialogues throughout my day (and over weeks or months that becomes huge) and that the "search" feature on PHPBB bulletin boards is somewhere between useless and pathetic. And that as a result, I can't always easily find your quaint and/or pithy remarks on one or another subject. Therefore, if they are that quaint, pithy, and more importantly important, it would be considered a courtesy if you could just repeat them, rather than remind me that if I had unlimited time I could find them.

[lancek4]

...we had to fearlessly face the proposition that either God is everything or he is nothing...

If this is the case, that God is everything, then there is nothing I can do to change how I am, not even surrender. If I am hurt by someone, there is no process of thinking that can relieve me of the fact that I have been hurt. If I think that it is ultimatly me that is the hurting, and that another person was not indeed instrumental in that hurting that is really my own, I have denied the ultimate reality in which I am a part. I have asserted the basic duality by which I am attempting to overcome the duality. I am asserting that i am the one that has been hurt independant of that other, thus I am hurt because that is exactly what I am supposed to be at that time, for that time, of that moment. If I then attempt to reconsile my feelings of discomfort by comeing to an understanding that somehow i am a separate being that that other person, and that i am responsible for my own reactions to the world, then I have again reified the duality and asserted that God is nothing.

if I am a Being that is separated from God sufficiently such that I may choose how I may precieve the world, then I have in effect removed that possibility of God being effective in my life, since such a God is dependant upon me instead of me upon God.

I have to agree Typist: your is truly aphilsophical in the most philsophical way, since it denies itself in its proposal.
Of course it is absurd, but then I need not sepak of its absurdity, since it makes not sense.

The course by which I come upon my life is absolutly aphiosophical, and I assert this in my essay. This is why i do not attempt to offer ideas about how I or another should live: it is not philsophical. Thus, in philsophy, i do not propose some way of living or some way of dealing with life: that is truely aphilosophcal. But not the aphilosophy that I propose, since, if I am proposing something, then it is philsophical, and a method of dealing with life is distinctly aphilsophical, it is methodological. Thus in a very true sence, which i actually take a position upon and decry, yours in indeed a philsophy because it proposes a method by which to live: which i argue is aphilsophical.

Christ.