Philosophy Now Forum

Jaded Sage wrote:...also that part about the difference between the enlightened and the unenlightened. It used to be difficult and frustrating to see the minds of all my old friends begin to work differently than mine. I come to places like this looking for non-no-hopers.

You surely are aware that taken on the whole this forum is a very contentious place. It requires a certain skill and humour to be able to function here, or perhaps to borrow what I take as metaphors essentially: an enlightened attitude.

Fortunately, or unfortunately, a philosophy forum requires the presentation of a thesis and then its defence by argument. It is very different from, say, a talk that one chooses to attend and even perhaps pays for - as for example to hear an enlightenment teacher speak. As you may or may not have guessed I am dubious toward the claims of enlightenment teachers, and I don't know if I can accept 'enlightenment' as a real term. After all who decides? The one who is enlightened? or the unenlightened who seek what is presented?

Myself, I relish in a sense polemic, and I find it useful to my own processes. Do you recoil from it? I mean from the 'fight' that is dialectic?

We are no longer stuck with the heavy baggage that we used to have when we considered our belief system to be a part of ourselves. We can now openly attack our own belief system, knowing that we are not harming ourselves, and so we are free to adjust and evolve very quickly.

Would you like me to develop an antithesis to this declarative statement? (It can be done).

I've noticed it's a contentious place. That's the problem. We are to decide what these words mean. I've offered two quotes to set us in what I believe and my experience tells me is the right direction. You seem to be ignoring the quotes and attacking the authors. They were never part of this.

Well yes, it's a problem in one sense. But there is potential advantage: the opportunity to clarify a presentation of view. So, I will start with that:

1) Contention is not bad, it is good and necessary.

2) It is true that 'we' must decide what the words mean, except that in your case you have already made your decisions, no? So, it is us who have to decide.

3) You are presenting a thesis, and argument, and yet you have not supported any part of it. You have only said 'This is my experience'. True, you say this is the 'right direction' which qualifies it to some degree. What in precise terms are you trying to say? Is 'enlightenment' a real thing for you? What is it? How would you describe it?

4) I personally don't care much about the authors and it is the ideas that I question. However, they are presenting conclusions really, and suggesting modes of activity which I think they imagine will 'resonate' with others.

5) Do you really think that the author of an idea has nothing to do with the ideas presented? You would seem to suggest that an idea floats in to us from outside. It lands in us like a bird and we either entertain it or don't. I have a different sense in this case although I am interested in ideas as principles. These ideas (those presented by these people) are contextual. They connect to other ideas and attitudes. These may be invisible or unstated yet they 'operate'.

I'm gonna wait until someone addresses the material appropriately (and says on topic). Two different thinkers, by the way.

Define 'appropriately' ...

It sounds too airy for me, too simplistic and escapist. It's only useful for someone trapped behind their pre-established ideas. But if you like that kind of stuff, you might want to to read The Book of Not Knowing by Peter Ralston.

Simple, I could see. I don't see the rest of it though. But though it is is simple, it is not easy. People hate to question their own intelligence, which ends up being implied by this kind of practice.

JS wrote:Simple, I could see. I don't see the rest of it though.

Right. And when you open the conversation to dialectic and the sharing of perspectives, you will allow for a philosophical approach and results will ensue.

As it is you are floating a religious premise while avoiding the definition of your own relationship to it, yet insinuating there is something important here.

Come out into the open ...

The first quote by David West describes my experience perfectly. That is why I am so quick to share it: I am always hopeful to see if others are having the same experience. The second one was more of a supplement. The "crumbling away of untruth" I thought characterized the entire experience. Also I think I mentioned some of this either, like how mind word differently: less contentious, quicker, noticing things others don't.

And what's different now?

What's better?

And why should this interest others?

Gustav Bjornstrand wrote:And what's different now?

What's better?

And why should this interest others?

There was a story that made osho famous. He said Gandhi was more violent than Hitler. He said so because hitler's victim's were at least capable to defending themselves to some extent. Gandhi, on the other hand, attacked himself, and therefore there was no one there to defend the attack. Likewise: we are to be like Gandhi and attack our own views. We grow rapidly, and arrive at more coherent views and a more sound mind.

Jaded Sage wrote:Simple, I could see. I don't see the rest of it though. But though it is is simple, it is not easy. People hate to question their own intelligence, which ends up being implied by this kind of practice.

I didn't say "simple"; I said simplistic. There's a difference. 'Emptiness' is not an end in in itself.

I'd have preferred that Rajneesh (Osho) get the bullet.

Coherence is a good thing, generally speaking. I have no why the movie Stop Making Sense got to be a hit.

But we are not to be like Gandhi. We are not to attack our views. We are to be more coherent though.

Gustav Bjornstrand wrote:I'd have preferred that Rajneesh (Osho) get the bullet.

Coherence is a good thing, generally speaking. I have no why the movie Stop Making Sense got to be a hit.

But we are not to be like Gandhi. We are not to attack our views. We are to be more coherent though.

I've tried both. Attacking works better.

Gandhi knew very well his methods would not have worked in every situation. He depended very much on the British sense of what's right.

I think, JS, you are misinterpreting what is meant by "attacking" your views.