aphilosophy

[lancek4]

..Uh which is what you seem to be proposing at times, but then to proceed into ZZennnnn . Which I think invalidates your proposal.
Let's move beyond this.

For example: Jim is happy when he has plenty of money, but when he he has little or no money he is depressed. His life is this way, so whenever he is depressed he goes to a therapist and delves into his past to find out why. Then he goes home and zens out to find peace, but he still goes on bummed out until he gets paid again.

One simple way into this without all the past dredging is the propsosition: Jim hates money.
Or Jim loves money.

Either way we have found a principle by which to begin speaking about Jims life without (overtly,directly) proposing a method to live by.

[Typist]

lancek4,

There may be interesting points within your posts. Or maybe your points aren't interesting. What you say could be right. Or maybe wrong. Maybe all of the above, or none of the above, or some combination as yet undiscovered.

Philosophy is a process of carefully analyzing the points you've presented and attempting to come to some conclusion about them. The philosopher makes a carefully organized pile of ideas on the ground.

aPhilosophy is a process of setting all the ideas aside. Just letting them go. The aphilosopher tosses the pile of ideas in to the air, and let's the wind blow them away.

The novice aphilosopher makes a carefully organized pile of aphilosophy ideas on the ground, and congratulates themselves on their progress as the pile grows ever higher.

[Arising_uk]

Philosophy is a process of carefully analyzing the points you've presented and attempting to come to some conclusion about them. The philosopher makes a carefully organized pile of ideas on the ground.

How would you know any of this? As you've repeatedly stated that you've not read nor studied any philosophy.

aPhilosophy is a process of setting all the ideas aside. Just letting them go. The aphilosopher tosses the pile of ideas in to the air, and let's the wind blow them away.

And here it shows. As you'd have to have been gathering the ideas, on the ground, to get your pile in the first place. You also contradict your latter statement with your former.

The novice aphilosopher makes a carefully organized pile of aphilosophy ideas on the ground, and congratulates themselves on their progress as the pile grows ever higher.

Showing themselves to be neither philosophers nor 'aphilosophers'.

[evangelicalhumanist]

Philosophy is a process of carefully analyzing the points you've presented and attempting to come to some conclusion about them. The philosopher makes a carefully organized pile of ideas on the ground.

aPhilosophy is a process of setting all the ideas aside. Just letting them go. The aphilosopher tosses the pile of ideas in to the air, and let's the wind blow them away.

The novice aphilosopher makes a carefully organized pile of aphilosophy ideas on the ground, and congratulates themselves on their progress as the pile grows ever higher.

Still not grasping the value proposition. What is an "idea," after all, but a mental impression? Is aPhilosophy really just about abandoning the mind altogether, in hopes that unassisted, unassessed, and even unnoticed taste, sight, smell, hearing, touch will provide something of use? What?

(Mercutio: "Consort! what, dost thou make us minstrels?"
EH: "Taste! what, dost thou make us amoebas?")

[Typist]

Still not grasping the value proposition.

Like I keep saying, readers are quite unlikely to grasp aphilosophy by doing philosophy. Please try to follow this carefully. It's really not very hard. You can do it!

1) aPhilosophy is an exploration of experience outside of thought.

2) You are trying to understand aphilosophy using thought.

See the problem yet?

That said yet again, I'll play along.

What is an "idea," after all, but a mental impression?

RIGHT! An idea is a mental impression. An idea is not reality, but a mental impression of reality. A photograph of reality.

aPhilosophy is redirecting our attention away from mental photographs of reality, to reality itself.

It's no more complicated than shifting your gaze from a photograph of your partner, to your real partner.

Philosophy is comparing a photograph of your partner to a photograph of your landlord, and arguing about who is more handsome.

aPhilosophy is putting the photographs back in the drawer.

Again, aphilosophy is not philosophy. That's why there's an "a" at the beginning of the word! You can read these posts and hit reply to respond over and over and over from now until the end of time, and nothing much will come of it.

Reading books about sex is not sex. Talking about aphilosophy isn't aphilosophy.

[Arising_uk]

1) aPhilosophy is an exploration of experience outside of thought.

Care to ever say what you mean by a "thought"?

2) You are trying to understand aphilosophy using thought.

Many of us already know what you yak on about, its called Phenomenology in Philosophy but since you can't be arsed to learn any you keep sounding like an idiot to those who know both languages.

See the problem yet?

I do, you are another dip-shit western gnu who can't explain how they got to their 'insights' but want to play the big 'I am not'.

That said yet again, I'll play along.

Why 'play'? Why not teach. Start with what you actually do when reaching this body-state you yak about.

RIGHT! An idea is a mental impression. An idea is not reality, but a mental impression of reality. A photograph of reality.

You do know that 'mental impression' is meaningless as an explanation of an "idea" don't you?

aPhilosophy is redirecting our attention away from mental photographs of reality, to reality itself.

No its not, its noticing how the body perceives without the mediation of memory or language. It may well be our reality but its not the 'reality'. Science is what tells us about reality and a bloody amazing thing it appears to be.

It's no more complicated than shifting your gaze from a photograph of your partner, to your real partner.

Given that you say there has to be no thought involved how would you know the difference?

Philosophy is comparing a photograph of your partner to a photograph of your landlord, and arguing about who is more handsome.

aPhilosophy is putting the photographs back in the drawer.

Useless pedagogy.

Again, aphilosophy is not philosophy. That's why there's an "a" at the beginning of the word! You can read these posts and hit reply to respond over and over and over from now until the end of time, and nothing much will come of it.

For one to understand a negation one must know the proposition being negated. Since you have avowed that you don't know philosophy your words are waffle.

Reading books about sex is not sex. Talking about aphilosophy isn't aphilosophy.

And yet you keep talking and repeating the same old tired metaphors. Doesn't say much for the use of 'aphilosopy' in the real world.

[chaz wyman]

Top Ten Aphilosphers

1) Viruses
2) Bacteria
3) Single Celled organisms
4) Plankton.
5) Gymnosperms
6) Angiosperms
7) Ferns
8 ) Bromeliads
9) acephaloids
10) Algae

[lancek4]

lancek4,

There may be interesting points within your posts. Or maybe your points aren't interesting. What you say could be right. Or maybe wrong. Maybe all of the above, or none of the above, or some combination as yet undiscovered.

Philosophy is a process of carefully analyzing the points you've presented and attempting to come to some conclusion about them. The philosopher makes a carefully organized pile of ideas on the ground.

aPhilosophy is a process of setting all the ideas aside. Just letting them go. The aphilosopher tosses the pile of ideas in to the air, and let's the wind blow them away.

OK Typist, it is over kill; and its now boring. I fully understand what you are saying. i do not know how to convey a more thorough meaning to my communication here. I do understand what you mean.
And by the way: Are you not hanging onto this idea of aphilsophy that is so precious to you. are you not contradicting the very spirit of aphilsophy by proposing what it is?

The novice aphilosopher makes a carefully organized pile of aphilosophy ideas on the ground, and congratulates themselves on their progress as the pile grows ever higher.
I would have to say, from this angle, that you are quite the novice. And it would amuse you to frollic in the mastering of aphilsophy that would enjoin with the reality that the master is also ths a novice. I get the irony. I get the spiritual zen stuff. the question is: Do you believe that I know what you are saying and what you mean? That is pivotal.

Your aphilsophy is such a great position because it proposes to meet and defeat all comers without even attempting to engage with them; it just flips the finger and smiles. Thats just great.
"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is a proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance - that principle is contempt prior to investigation." (Spencer)

What I, and many of us, propose, is that being human is a two-fold business: it is, as you say, aphilsophical, and then it is also philsophical.

You have made your point, long ago in this forum. Now, will you concede that I know what you are saying? That I have practiced aphilsophy?? That I indeed do your so-called aphilslophy???

So, I now ask, for the sake of the human balance that is health, that you use the other half so we might find a balanced, and unbiased truth. So that we might not in our ego harbor malice and point our truths at others because we are afraid at what they might point at us. That I might be able to encounter the possibility that what I know may be wrong.

*

In this spirit, I have been reading Plato's "Protagoras", and I came upon a part which reflects exactly my position; I quote at length:

"So [Socrates] said: Do not imagine, Protagoras, that I have any other interest in asking questions of you but that of clearing up my own difficulties. For I think Homer was very right in saying that 'when two go together, one sees before the other', for all men who have a companion are readier in deed, word, or thought; but if a man 'sees a thing when he is alone', he goes about straight away seeking until he finds some one to whom he may show his discoveries, and who may confirm them. "

So it is that I (we) see how you withhold yourself, or at least determine and wall yourself with the stonghold of 'being alone with yourself, practicing aphilsophy', and that is good and all; everyone needs such a repreive. But you yourself indicate that philosophy has its time too, and of this, I (we) ask that you join us. Bravely, and confident that whatever might be said, nothing which I think I may know as true is too sacred for me not to be breached.

So my question concerns the following proposition:
My aphilsophical position is that there is not an 'aphilsophical' position such as Typist has described, that this position is entirely enscribed by discourse. How can this be?

[evangelicalhumanist]

aPhilosophy is an exploration of experience outside of thought.
...
It's no more complicated than shifting your gaze from a photograph of your partner, to your real partner.
...
Reading books about sex is not sex. Talking about aphilosophy isn't aphilosophy.

Well you are persistent (as I am, I guess). But I'm still left with too many questions, to which I think the answer would lead away from even an ability to "do" aPhilosophy as you describe it. Let me use your own examples, above, to illustrate.

First of all, can humans actually "experience outside of thought?" Have you, yourself, ever been in a situation (short of general anaesthetic) in which you could honestly say that there was no "thought" going on at all -- in which your mind was not doing some evaluation, some comparison, some recognition? More importantly, given what (little) seems to be known about the mind these days (see Bernard Baars, in particular) do you think that there are areas of even the most adept guru's brain that are not assiduously doing what they do anyway, so often in the absence of his conscious awareness even when not meditating? I should be very surprised. (Probably my biggest reason for surprise is that even the most adept guru "remembers" to stop meditating, or else he would remain in a "perfectly unaware" state forever.)

What is it about looking at a picture of my partner that you think is so wildly different from looking at my partner? Many of the same emotions, memories, thoughts are evoked in either case. And the fact is, if you know anything at all about how vision works, and how visual images are actually processed in the brain (and it has been shown if these processes aren't activated early in life, somebody with normal visual equipment will not see consciously but will "see" unconsciously and be able to correctly locate things -- it's called "blindsight"), then you know that mind is deeply involved in the process from the get-go. We do not experience anything directly -- everything is processed through a mind that is fundamentally inter-wired to the processes that make our senses real to us. It is, for example, extremely well-known that smell can instantly evoke the deepest of memories and emotions, usually completely outside of any control by the individual.

And finally, I agree that reading about sex is not the same as sex. (There have been those times in my life when I've had to resort to what I euphemistically call the "one-handed novel.") But having sex is not always just having sex, either. Try it with someone you love deeply, then try it with somebody you don't like! Try it with somebody you're attracted to, then with somebody you're not. Try it in the light and then in the dark, or in the forest and then in the comfort of bed. Not the same, not nearly the same! And why not? Because the "experience" does not exist in isolation. Your brain is your most important sex organ, you know (though not always the largest -- I've met some dumbo types who nature had compensated rather surprisingly!).

[Typist]

the question is: Do you believe that I know what you are saying and what you mean? That is pivotal.

Apologies, but I find it quite difficult to understand what you're saying or understanding, as your presentations are a challenge to wade through.

[Typist]

Well you are persistent (as I am, I guess).

Yes, we share this doggedness! I like that about you, you're durable.

But I'm still left with too many questions...

If your desire is to explore philosophy, then you should organize your question list, prioritize the questions, and then carefully and patiently use reason to analyze the questions most important to you.

If your desire is to explore aphilosophy, then the challenge is letting the questions go.

I'm not trying to tell you what you should choose, only trying to make clear, aphilosophy is not philosophy. Again, please note the "a" at the beginning of the word aphilosophy. The "a". Keep your eye on that "a".

Philosophy => dive in to the questions.

aPhilosophy => toss the questions in to the air and let the wind blow them away.

Philosophy => understanding thoughts

aPhilosophy => surrendering thoughts

You are experiencing a VERY common problem. You are trying to think your way to aphilosophy, a discipline that is explicitly about explorations outside of thought. Thus, every question you set up to analyze takes you farther away from where you are trying to go.

Please observe. Letting the questions go can be quite challenging. It can be more challenging than analyzing the questions.

First of all, can humans actually "experience outside of thought?"

Yes.

Have you, yourself, ever been in a situation (short of general anaesthetic) in which you could honestly say that there was no "thought" going on at all -- in which your mind was not doing some evaluation, some comparison, some recognition?

Yes.

But, I suggest not getting too caught up in chasing a pure state of non-thought. It's much more practical to focus on learning how to turn down the volume of thought. Little baby steps in that direction are the serious course of action.

More importantly, given what (little) seems to be known about the mind these days (see Bernard Baars, in particular) do you think that there are areas of even the most adept guru's brain that are not assiduously doing what they do anyway, so often in the absence of his conscious awareness even when not meditating? I should be very surprised. (Probably my biggest reason for surprise is that even the most adept guru "remembers" to stop meditating, or else he would remain in a "perfectly unaware" state forever.)

I really don't know.

What is it about looking at a picture of my partner that you think is so wildly different from looking at my partner?

Your partner is alive. The photo is dead.

If there is no big difference between the two, wouldn't it be cost efficient to get rid of the partner? Think of the savings!

Many of the same emotions, memories, thoughts are evoked in either case. And the fact is, if you know anything at all about how vision works, and how visual images are actually processed in the brain (and it has been shown if these processes aren't activated early in life, somebody with normal visual equipment will not see consciously but will "see" unconsciously and be able to correctly locate things -- it's called "blindsight"), then you know that mind is deeply involved in the process from the get-go. We do not experience anything directly -- everything is processed through a mind that is fundamentally inter-wired to the processes that make our senses real to us. It is, for example, extremely well-known that smell can instantly evoke the deepest of memories and emotions, usually completely outside of any control by the individual.

Ok, whatever you say.

[evangelicalhumanist]

Your partner is alive. The photo is dead.

If there is no big difference between the two, wouldn't it be cost efficient to get rid of the partner? Think of the savings!

Ever had a fight with your loved one? I regret to say that I have -- more than one (or two or three) actually. And there have been times when, looking at my partner was not the best thing at all. There was, in fact, one occasion when looking at a photograph of him, standing in the forecourt of Hampton Court palace up the Thames from London, reminded me of other parts of him that I couldn't quite see at the moment. Which, I wonder, was the more "alive," or was the problem that I was allowing to "live" that which was partly only in my own mind? The photograph spoke to another part of this "living" person, a part that was well-preserved in my own memory. And also, if you will, still very much "alive." We are, happily, still together, so I suspect I've answered my own question. Does it speak to you at all?

I'm reminded of one of Shakespeare's sonnets (I can actually recite many of them from memory -- along with dozens of the major speeches from the plays). Sonnet to the "young man" (from memory, so if I get the punctuation wrong, forgive):

What potions have I drunk of Siren tears,
Distilled from limbecks foul as hell within,
Applying fears to hopes, and hopes to fears,
Still losing when I saw myself to win!
What wretched errors hath my heart committed,
Whilst it hath thought itself so blessed never!
How have mine eyes out of their spheres been fitted,
In the distraction of this madding fever!
O benefit of ill! now I find true
That better is by evil still made better;
And ruined love, when it is built anew,
Grows fairer than at first, more strong, far greater.
So I return rebuked to my content,
And gain by ills thrice more than I have spent.

[Arising_uk]

...
Philosophy => dive in to the questions.

How would you know? You've repeatedly said you've not studied philosophy.

aPhilosophy => toss the questions in to the air and let the wind blow them away.

Care to say what questions you are tossing away?

Philosophy => understanding thoughts

No, expressing ones thoughts clearly and understandably, considering questions and understanding which can have answers and which can't, and a whole host of other useful attributes.

aPhilosophy => surrendering thoughts

Care to say what a "thought" is in 'aphilosophy' and how you've surrendered them?

First of all, can humans actually "experience outside of thought?"

Yes.

No, and you know why? Because "experience" is how you deal with whats happened to you, not whats happened to you. Hence, so far, you show no experience of whats happened to you, and even less when you try to talk about it.

Yes.

But, I suggest not getting too caught up in chasing a pure state of non-thought. It's much more practical to focus on learning how to turn down the volume of thought. Little baby steps in that direction are the serious course of action.

You claim satori?

Care to say what these baby-steps were for you? How can it be a 'state' of anything if there is 'non-thought'? Not saying it isn't but until you say what a 'thought' is in your idea it just sounds like nonsense in English. You also ignore that just because you do, others may not 'think' in voice.

But for anyone really interested in 'baby-steps' I recommend this link; An interesting state of mind.
If you do think in voice then try making an image that represents your voices, e.g. a sound-mixing board and then picture all the knobs being turned down, then learn to use peripheral vision and learn to walk in what you think is a powerful and graceful way. Not everyone suits the 'hippie' sit-on-your arse breathing method for gaining these states that the gnus yak about.

If you can afford it, take a Grinder accredited NC NLP course if you are interested in what the 'aphilosophers' twitter on about but cannot explain, and gain an interesting epistemology and understanding of communication, thought and thinking.

[lancek4]

For now: what these guys said, and..
When one has acheived a cetain 'skill' in meditating it has been said that where the novice might have difficulty in sitting quietly for 2 minutes, the vetran will enter the meditative state and come out of it and and hour (or more) will have passed where it seemed like a minute.
This is, what I gather, a thoughtless state.
And, if the vetran were to afterwards describe that thoughtless period he would inevitably have to use 'thoughts' to situate what that state actuallly was.

[chaz wyman]

For now: what these guys said, and..
When one has acheived a cetain 'skill' in meditating it has been said that where the novice might have difficulty in sitting quietly for 2 minutes, the vetran will enter the meditative state and come out of it and and hour (or more) will have passed where it seemed like a minute.
This is, what I gather, a thoughtless state.
And, if the vetran were to afterwards describe that thoughtless period he would inevitably have to use 'thoughts' to situate what that state actuallly was.

I really do not think it is possible to be aware of a period in which you do not think.
Even in sleep - the part you recall dreaming is evidence of thinking.
A complete lack of thinking is called being unconsciousness, for that you need to be hit with a 2x4, or drop some very strong drugs.
Any one that claimed to be able to assume the position of aphilosophy I would question their mental health.