Philosophy Now Forum

Greta wrote:

Dontaskme wrote:There are no relationships or paradoxes in reality. All descriptions are purely conceptual...not real.

An aggregate of trees appear to make a forest ...but there is no forest in reality... only trees. The forest can never be reached by adding more trees, the forest will just get bigger and bigger and further and further away..never quite catching up with itself.

That's basically reductionism, a denial of emergence. It reminds me of Margaret Thatcher claiming that there is no society, only individuals. Nope. There definitely are individuals, but the collective is greater than the sum of its parts. Humans can't go to space. Plenty of us can't tie their own shoelaces. But humanity can land a space craft on a comet travelling half a billion kms way that's travelling at 38k per second. By the same token, your internal bacteria and individual cells can't write posts on philosophy forums, but you can.

it's all a matter of perspective. "Society" only exists when people agree that it exists. The move MT was making was to deny the power of the collective which had grown to empower working people. She did this by mobilising a sub-society of the elite composed of media moguls, captains of industry, the aristocracy, and sectional interests of the middle class. What in fact she managed to do was to divide and conquer, by promising the disenfranchised membership into a smaller more privileged society "of individuals".

But the fact that she did this emphasises the fact that "society" is conceptual and not actual, that it is divisible and can be eschewed. A tree is still a tree, even when there is no human to decide it is part of a forest. The idea that you cannot see the wood for the trees goes both ways. You cannot see the wood; the forest, of the lignified material wood we use to make chairs from. IN both senses a tree can depart from a forest and wood can be separate from a tree.
In a nihilistic sense none of these things have identity; wood, tree, forest, except that which is bestowed upon them by human utility.

Greta wrote:

Dontaskme wrote:There are no relationships or paradoxes in reality. All descriptions are purely conceptual...not real.

An aggregate of trees appear to make a forest ...but there is no forest in reality... only trees. The forest can never be reached by adding more trees, the forest will just get bigger and bigger and further and further away..never quite catching up with itself.

That's basically reductionism, a denial of emergence. It reminds me of Margaret Thatcher claiming that there is no society, only individuals. Nope. There definitely are individuals, but the collective is greater than the sum of its parts. Humans can't go to space. Plenty of us can't tie their own shoelaces. But humanity can land a space craft on a comet travelling half a billion kms way that's travelling at 38k per second. By the same token, your internal bacteria and individual cells can't write posts on philosophy forums, but you can.

Again..You are still caught up in the net of I...who thinks or believes it knows the you.

Who is this you that you talk about?... the collective is greater than the sum of it's parts is an idea that cannot be known by I ..so it's useless to even talk about the greater as if you already know what the greater is...the simple fact is there is no you because there is no other than you. And that you cannot be known by you the part.

Dontaskme wrote:

Greta wrote:

Dontaskme wrote:There are no relationships or paradoxes in reality. All descriptions are purely conceptual...not real.

An aggregate of trees appear to make a forest ...but there is no forest in reality... only trees. The forest can never be reached by adding more trees, the forest will just get bigger and bigger and further and further away..never quite catching up with itself.

That's basically reductionism, a denial of emergence. It reminds me of Margaret Thatcher claiming that there is no society, only individuals. Nope. There definitely are individuals, but the collective is greater than the sum of its parts. Humans can't go to space. Plenty of us can't tie their own shoelaces. But humanity can land a space craft on a comet travelling half a billion kms way that's travelling at 38k per second. By the same token, your internal bacteria and individual cells can't write posts on philosophy forums, but you can.

Again..You are still caught up in the net of I...who thinks or believes it knows the you.

Who is this you that you talk about?... the collective is greater than the sum of it's parts is an idea that cannot be known by I ..so it's useless to even talk about the greater as if you already know what the greater is...the simple fact is there is no you because there is no other than you. And that you cannot be known by you the part.

No one is talking here.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:
No one is talking here.

Exactly, there's just what's appearing as words on the screen of awareness...there's no meaning in a word except the one you give it... the meaning is the word, but the word does not have actual meaning...it's all trickery.

Communication is either conceptually verbalised or in conceptual symbolic form, both being illusory appearances of sound and light.

For example: the concept Death is absolutely empty. No picture comes to mind about death. Therefore every concept is nothing more than a metaphorical representation and not real reality for there is nothing behind an image known that appears in the mind other than a conceptually constructed metaphor.

Dontaskme wrote:

Greta wrote:

Dontaskme wrote:There are no relationships or paradoxes in reality. All descriptions are purely conceptual...not real.

An aggregate of trees appear to make a forest ...but there is no forest in reality... only trees. The forest can never be reached by adding more trees, the forest will just get bigger and bigger and further and further away..never quite catching up with itself.

That's basically reductionism, a denial of emergence. It reminds me of Margaret Thatcher claiming that there is no society, only individuals. Nope. There definitely are individuals, but the collective is greater than the sum of its parts. Humans can't go to space. Plenty of us can't tie their own shoelaces. But humanity can land a space craft on a comet travelling half a billion kms way that's travelling at 38k per second. By the same token, your internal bacteria and individual cells can't write posts on philosophy forums, but you can.

Again..You are still caught up in the net of I...who thinks or believes it knows the you.

Who is this you that you talk about?... the collective is greater than the sum of it's parts is an idea that cannot be known by I ..so it's useless to even talk about the greater as if you already know what the greater is...the simple fact is there is no you because there is no other than you. And that you cannot be known by you the part.

We can know plenty about structures of which we are part. In fact, living in a eusocial society, if you don't understand larger structures you cannot function, eg. if you don't know the taxation office, it will soon give you a crash course.

Dontaskme wrote:the fact is that people do actually awaken to the truth of reality. Nick has...and it's plainly obvious he has, so has Reflex ...this knowing is easy to spot in another simply by what they write about.....I know, because it's happened to me also. I too am awakened to truth.

Whatever you all think you've awakened to contains your own trip. That is clear based on what you say and do, and what you do not see and hear. The concepts you speak of are not foreign to me (and some others here too, I'm sure). There is no individual self while there is also the illusion of an individual self which we can play with -- else you wouldn't be here talking on this forum as you do. Part of playing is for the one mind to pretend its talking to others -- and to pretend its telling "others" how to wake up. It's your own trip, that's all. And as I said to Nick, you apparently cannot see awareness looking back at you.

I am fully comfortable playing along WHILE being aware that there is no separation. And clearly I've got you all fooled... which means you're all quite shallow with your judgments. You look for trigger words that you can pounce on, without realizing what can be behind them. It's ALL part of the manifestation of the one. Why are you separating yourselves out from "others" in such a way as to claim how much more you know/see? Why is that necessary? What is your reward?

I do not believe I am the label LW... and the fact that you don't realize this by now shows that you aren't listening or seeing anything other than what you need/want in order to continue your positioning for telling other people how it is. Your trip.

Dontaskme wrote:
Lacewing...the fact is that people do actually awaken to the truth of reality. Nick has...and it's plainly obvious he has, so has Reflex ...

Ohhhhh. Now you've REALLY offended LW!

Reflex wrote:

Dontaskme wrote:
Lacewing...the fact is that people do actually awaken to the truth of reality. Nick has...and it's plainly obvious he has, so has Reflex ...

Ohhhhh. Now you've REALLY offended LW!

It's all a game of the one, don't you know? It appears that you've lost sight of the fraud that you are.

Lacewing wrote:

Dontaskme wrote:the fact is that people do actually awaken to the truth of reality. Nick has...and it's plainly obvious he has, so has Reflex ...this knowing is easy to spot in another simply by what they write about.....I know, because it's happened to me also. I too am awakened to truth.

Whatever you all think you've awakened to contains your own trip. That is clear based on what you say and do, and what you do not see and hear. The concepts you speak of are not foreign to me (and some others here too, I'm sure). There is no individual self while there is also the illusion of an individual self which we can play with -- else you wouldn't be here talking on this forum as you do. Part of playing is for the one mind to pretend its talking to others -- and to pretend its telling "others" how to wake up. It's your own trip, that's all. And as I said to Nick, you apparently cannot see awareness looking back at you.

I am fully comfortable playing along WHILE being aware that there is no separation. And clearly I've got you all fooled... which means you're all quite shallow with your judgments. You look for trigger words that you can pounce on, without realizing what can be behind them. It's ALL part of the manifestation of the one. Why are you separating yourselves out from "others" in such a way as to claim how much more you know/see? Why is that necessary? What is your reward?

I do not believe I am the label LW... and the fact that you don't realize this by now shows that you aren't listening or seeing anything other than what you need/want in order to continue your positioning for telling other people how it is. Your trip.

If you know you are not separate, then resonate with the rest of us or shut up....Why you getting so heated about what you already know..? why do you keep saying it's other peoples trip? .. who is this other one who according to you is on there own trip...

Why are you separating yourselves out from "others" in such a way as to claim how much more you know/see? Why is that necessary?

No one can do that it is impossible...have you tried splitting yourself in two lately ?

When this one apparently goes against the flow, it singles itself out...it does this to itself, albeit illusory... LW you either understand oneness or you don't, and you are clearly not understanding it right now....otherwise you wouldn't be in conflict with other posters. What is happening right now is what's happening and no one doing it, all that is appearing as your words and my words is oneness expressing itself, because that's what it does...the one who wants to know why this is all necessary is not Lacewing, but the one who is playing the character LW....that one is expressing itself right now....can that be avoided...no it can't...please get a grip and stop beating yourself up over this...flow with the flow...effortlessly and smoothly back to the ocean of oneness, and stop with all the grinding noises .

If you agree with what I'm saying then stop fighting with it.

Dontaskme wrote:If you know you are not separate, then resonate with the rest of us or shut up....

Priceless!

Dam wrote: Again..You are still caught up in the net of I...who thinks or believes it knows the you.

Who is this you that you talk about?... the collective is greater than the sum of it's parts is an idea that cannot be known by I ..so it's useless to even talk about the greater as if you already know what the greater is...the simple fact is there is no you because there is no other than you. And that you cannot be known by you the part.
Again..You are still caught up in the net of I...who thinks or believes it knows the you.

Who is this you that you talk about?... the collective is greater than the sum of it's parts is an idea that cannot be known by I ..so it's useless to even talk about the greater as if you already know what the greater is...the simple fact is there is no you because there is no other than you. And that you cannot be known by you the part.

This secular educated oneness is the Great Beast, the grand collective. There are still some individuals who doubt this but they are a dying breed. Those who are educated must all hail the Great Beast as the ultimate oneness.

From Simone Weil's Gravity and Grace:
The Great Beast [society, the collective] is the only object of idolatry, the only ersatz of God, the only imitation of something which is infinitely far from me and which is I myself.

It is impossible for me to take myself as an end or, in consequence, my fellow man as an end, since he is my fellow. Nor can I take a material thing, because matter is still less capable of having finality conferred upon it than human beings are.

Only one thing can be taken as an end, for in relation to the human person it possesses a kind of transcendence: this is the collective.

All hail the grand transcendent collective; Mr. magnificence itself: The Great Beast.

Individual things exist -- that much is obvious; just as obvious is the fact that that nothing exists individually.

The bifurcation of "how" and "why," "primary" and "secondary" properties, "cause" and "effect," "mathematical truths" and "left-over truths," "experiment" and "experience" cuts to pieces Indra's net. It is the source of much confusion. But without that confusion, individuated Mind (capital "M") cannot enjoy the adventure of minds (small "m") constructing innumerable bridges between self and Self. But with adventure comes risk and the possibility of conflict, suffering and failure.

Non-religious minds (small "m") bemoan the risks that come with adventure and cringe at the thought of facing it head-on; religious minds celebrate the challenge. All my ideation is an adventure in progressive change that culminates in a bridge between my self and Self, the transcendent God.

In short, I love the thrill of chasing rainbows.

Reflex wrote: In short, I love the thrill of chasing rainbows.

And you're giving the rest of us a good laugh watching you do it. It's a win win situation.

Reflex wrote:Individual things exist -- that much is obvious; just as obvious is the fact that that nothing exists individually.

The bifurcation of "how" and "why," "primary" and "secondary" properties, "cause" and "effect," "mathematical truths" and "left-over truths," "experiment" and "experience" cuts to pieces Indra's net. It is the source of much confusion. But without that confusion, individuated Mind (capital "M") cannot enjoy the adventure of minds (small "m") constructing innumerable bridges between self and Self. But with adventure comes risk and the possibility of conflict, suffering and failure.

Non-religious minds (small "m") bemoan the risks that come with adventure and cringe at the thought of facing it head-on; religious minds celebrate the challenge. All my ideation is an adventure in progressive change that culminates in a bridge between my self and Self, the transcendent God.

In short, I love the thrill of chasing rainbows.

Lovely!

And well said.

Dontaskme wrote: Lovely!

And well said.

Yes, it almost made me cry.