Philosophy Now Forum

Duzsek

duszek wrote:So do you mean that certain enlighted people do not have to make ANY decisions AT ALL ?

It is easy to argue that no-one ever takes any decisions and never will. Just because we believe we are making decisions doesn't mean we actually are. Enlightenment is nothing other than realising that we have never made a decision and we never have to, that all this business to do with decisions is a monumental illusion.

The important thing is: don't think that enlightened people are any way different to the unenlightened. They aren't miraculous beings who somehow learn how not to take decisions. An enlightened person is simply someone who is no longer under a misunderstanding.

duszek wrote:There are lots of situations in which you have to think hard about what to do, you need to choose the right way of conduct.
For example, two injured people are lying on the ground, shall I attend to the one´s injuries first or to the other´s injuries first ? An emergency doctor has to ask himself.

Also, there are no situations where you have to choose the right way of conduct! If the doctor was able to transcend his own ego he would be able to see that there is no decision to make, that the doctor will tend to one first and then the second - that it will happen without his intervention.

To live this way is to live in the flow of life. The patients will not get neglected, and yet no decision was taken.

duszek wrote:It´s good to be detached, if this is what you mean. But life can force you to take an active part in it. And doubts are normal and have to be considered.

To be detached is not to be disengaged! Although in your defence this is an error nearly everyone who tries to understand the spiritual life makes. When you are detached you are able to accept and endorse everything that happens. When you do this you lose the sense of being in the 'thick of the action' because there are no particular things to do and things to avoid doing.

The miracle is: you can detach yourself and everything gets done and completed just as it always did. The Tao Te Ching describe this process of detachment very nicely: "one does less and less until one does nothing at all, and when one does nothing at all there is nothing that is left undone."

In the Bhagavad Gita the same teaching is given:

'The fool, cheated by self, thinks "This I did"
And "That I wrought" but - ah, thou strong-armed prince
A better-lessoned mind, knowing the play
Of visible things within the world of sense,
And how the qualities must qualify,
Standeth aloof from his acts' (tr. Edwin Arnold, 1899)

But life can force you to take an active part in it.

What you call 'taking an active part' is what I call descending into ignorance. It is when you think that you are acting that you are ignorant - you are never a part in life, you only think you are.

Best wishes, Nikolai

Hi arising,

I read your NLP link and I was astonished. It was the first thing I've read that has described my changes in vision since I started meditating. I should say that this was not a deliberate technique like in the essay - it happened of its own accord and against all expectation.

I've always explained it to myself in the Indian sense of opening up spiritual vision, or one's third eye. In your link it was about saturating the rods and cones.

I recently noticed another trick with 'peripheral vision'. If you spin a bicycle wheel very quickly (while truing a buckle in my own case!) the grip and tread on the tyre merge into a smooth blur. But if you use your peripheral vision you can for a moment see the wheel's tread, in all its detail, as if it was completely motionless.

Your link essay says: "In everyday usage the eyes tend to employ foveal vision - the aspect of our vision where we focus upon specifics, and out of these, build and maintain our perceptual model 0f the world."

In my case with the wheel, motion in time was part of this perceptual model and it can be perceptually halted at will. I wonder what this means for time?

Best wishes, Nikolai

PS - I thought Sanjay's message to you was absolutely amazing. I hope you give it the attention it deserves.

Hi lance

lancek4 wrote:Sometimes I am very relaxed and content when my thoughts are quickfireing.

I know exactly what you mean! In meditation, when you are able to just sit back and observe the thoughts happening it can be deeply relaxing, like watching waves on the beach. It is because of this that I feel I need to remind Typist sometimes that thoughts, even when quickfiring, are nothing negative 'in themselves' and don't even need to be 'managed'. Anyway, I think he's got the message haven't you Typist?

Nikolai wrote: It is because of this that I feel I need to remind Typist sometimes that thoughts, even when quickfiring, are nothing negative 'in themselves' and don't even need to be 'managed'. Anyway, I think he's got the message haven't you Typist?

I'm afraid I haven't. You've yet to explain why thought should be considered differently than any other function of the human body.

Do you object to us managing what we eat and how much we eat? Do you object to us managing what we drink and how much we drink? Do you object to us managing how much exercise we give our muscles, heart, and circulatory system? Do you object to using hatha yoga to stay limber? Do you object to dental care? How about doctor's visits?

For every other function of the body we take it for granted that using simple common sense management procedures is good for health.

You accept that the quality of thought should be managed, in fact you are promoting this earnestly. But you seem determined to reject management of the quantity of thought, while doing it yourself for an hour every day.

In saying that "thought doesn't need to be managed" you are referring to enlightened people, a group whose existence we have yet to prove. Even if we accept the existence of such a phenomena on faith, which I am willing to do, all of us can easily see from our daily life that the size of the enlightened people group is at best, exceedingly small.

Even if it's true that enlightened people don't need to manage the quantity of their thought, a proposal I'm happy to accept, you've yet to explain what that has to do with us.

Imho, you are choosing a kind of abstract intellectual purity over addressing the needs of the average human being in a practical way.

Typist wrote:Imho, you are choosing a kind of abstract intellectual purity over addressing the needs of the average human being in a practical way.

Typist stop! I've said it many times and this shall be the last.

Here. Now. I am not addressing the Average. Human. Being. I am addressing people who are uncommonly able to grasp my abstract intellectual purity. Just look at the company you are in! To others I would speak otherwise. I have said this many times over the last few months. To others I would, and do, speak otherwise.

Typist wrote:You've yet to explain why thought should be considered differently than any other function of the human body.

Now that's a good question. You've got to understand that what goes for thought goes for everything else in the human body. As I explained to Duzsek, nothing needs managing - not out health, our finances, nothing. Unless you learn how this is the case for your body and everything, you will never understand how it can be the case for thought. When you do understand, you will realise how you were mistaken in singling out thought as being more of a culprit in our misery than the flowers and the trees in the holy forest. Conversely, this is why I upbraided you for thinking that silence of the forest is more healthful than thinking.

In terms of philosophical yoga, I was trying to communicate this by talking about idealism - just before you disappeared (into the forest?) We can pick that back up if you want, because the perspective of idealism is a very good antidote to our habitual realism ( I would recommend A_uk enrol on this course too!)

Typist wrote:You accept that the quality of thought should be managed, in fact you are promoting this earnestly.

That is true - but if you want to actually know the truth you will have to reject all the various perspectives that I that shall advance here. But, in the meantime, if you are still attached to any particular worldview then you have still have some intellectual work to do.

You are perhaps thinking: why don't I just reject all this philosophy now? Well you can if you wish. But it's clear to me and everyone else that you are still very attached to your thoughts. Your behaviour is very much that of someone who belives that there is a world out there that needs to be understood. Perhaps you castigate thought because it is such a problem with you?

If you want to carry on life by being attached to thought, but strategically mediated by doses of silence - that is of course fine. But in doing so you reject philosophical yoga. That's fine too - I know how alluring the life of the mind is. But if you reject it then there is no need to keep returning.

All I can say is that me, and many others before me have discovered ataraxia -serenity, peace of mind. There is a path for the thinker, even if he must ultimately stop being a thinker, as has happened to me.

Best wishes, Nikolai

Typist stop! I've said it many times and this shall be the last.

Are you sure it's philosophy you want to do? Is it possible you wish to challenge everything, except your own conclusions?

Here. Now. I am not addressing the Average. Human. Being. I am addressing people who are uncommonly able to grasp my abstract intellectual purity.

Ok, good, I agree.. This could be a good test case.

If you are unable to develop evidence that such an approach can significantly change the lives of any philosophically inclined readers here, whom you have defined as an advanced audience, then what? In such a case, will you be willing to be a good philosopher, and face such evidence?

I'm only doing what philosophers do, at your request, and pointing out that, so far, you have no such evidence. But please, continue with the experiment. I agree it's too soon to come to any conclusion.

You've got to understand that what goes for thought goes for everything else in the human body. As I explained to Duzsek, nothing needs managing - not out health, our finances, nothing.

Ok, but again, and please forgive me...

If this is true, why are you intent on helping us manage our philosophy, our understanding of who we really are, and so on?

This is part of what philosophy does Nik, it attempts to uncover internal conflicts within points of view. If you do indeed wish for us to follow the philosophical path, you will welcome such inquiries and challenges.

Unless you learn how this is the case for your body and everything, you will never understand how it can be the case for thought. When you do understand, you will realise how you were mistaken in singling out thought as being more of a culprit in our misery than the flowers and the trees in the holy forest. Conversely, this is why I upbraided you for thinking that silence of the forest is more healthful than thinking.

Then why is enlightenment more healthful than unenlightenment?

It seems you kind of want your cake and eat it too, philosophically speaking. You seem to be saying, nothing really matters, we don't need to manage ANYTHING, but, we really really need to manage our relationship with enlightenment. Choose one please.

We can pick that back up if you want, because the perspective of idealism is a very good antidote to our habitual realism

I'm agreeable, please proceed.

That is true - but if you want to actually know the truth you will have to reject all the various perspectives that I that shall advance here.

Which is of course what I'm doing.

Does this help clarify?

Perhaps you are saying that the rejection of various perspectives will happen at some point in the future, leading to some kind of permanent transformation.

Perhaps I'm saying all the various perspectives can be rejected right now, in the moment, just for the moment, not as a means to some future end.

Is that a fair summary? If not, no problem, please clarify.

But, in the meantime, if you are still attached to any particular worldview then you have still have some intellectual work to do.

Is this the particular worldview you are attached to?

You are perhaps thinking: why don't I just reject all this philosophy now? Well you can if you wish.

I'm thinking, all this philosophy can be set aside in any moment, for that moment.

But it's clear to me and everyone else that you are still very attached to your thoughts. Your behaviour is very much that of someone who belives that there is a world out there that needs to be understood. Perhaps you castigate thought because it is such a problem with you?

Yes, this is all true. I've stated repeatedly that I'm interested in "aphilosophy" or whatever we wish to call it, because this is an interest I've needed to develop to balance over active thinking. All true. I'm like a mental fat man, who needs to stay on a diet.

If there is no world out there that needs to be understood, why do you keep asking us to understand it?

If you want to carry on life by being attached to thought, but strategically mediated by doses of silence - that is of course fine. But in doing so you reject philosophical yoga.

I don't reject philosophical yoga, I am DOING philosophical yoga with you, at your request.

But I am beginning to question whether you really do want to do philosophy, or whether maybe it's religion you prefer? I don't claim to know, just wondering out loud.

All I can say is that me, and many others before me have discovered ataraxia -serenity, peace of mind. There is a path for the thinker, even if he must ultimately stop being a thinker, as has happened to me.

Hmm.... You have stopped being a thinker? You no longer have conclusions? If you have serenity, then you will welcome my relentless never ending assault upon your positions?

Um, look, time for some housekeeping perhaps?

I've been having this conversation in forums, on this specific topic, for years. In addition, I seem to have a natural knack for dismantling ideas, which I take no credit for, as I had nothing to do with that. To make things worse, I'm a simple minded fellow, and when folks say they want to do philosophical yoga with the goal of liberating ourselves from attachment to any particular perspective, I take that literally. To compound all of the above, I have an excess of enthusiasm and energy.

The point of this "all about me" confessional declaration is that, if you don't truly wish to do philosophical yoga with the with the goal of liberating ourselves from attachment to any particular perspective, it's possible you may find our conversations ever less enjoyable. If we continue together, it's my intention to do what you've asked us to do, and follow your own perspective through to it's logical conclusion.

Or, we could talk about the weather in Finland, and the holy forest! This would be most agreeable as well.

Dear Nikolai,

You asked AUK to reply my post.

BUT, IN MY OPINION, IT IS NOT NECESSARY. THE SILENCE IS THE PERFECT ANSWER AS I UNDERSTAND WHAT IT MEANS. THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO NEED FOR ANY WORDS.

Because I feel that my job is done and that was to clear the perspective from my point of view. AUK may or may not reply to me but I am sure that he must have read it. So, whatever I said will keep roaming in his mind, just as I mentioned through a parable about monkey in my last post. Sooner or later, he will able to realize whether I was right or wrong as I know that he will be the best judge because-

WE CAN LIE EVEN TO GOD BUT NOT OURSELVES.

So, it is better to leave him to think about it and draw a right conclusion. If he has something in his mind, he will again fire some questions. I do not mind questioning, unless and until, those are not asked just for the sake of questioning. On the contrary, I am feeling that questioning is helping me in the sense that it brings more out from me.

My interaction with philosophy is just 4-5 months old. It happened accidentally when I mistaken “the Chinese room argument” with something related to Chinese economy. I found it interesting and tried to go through the arguments, both in favor and negation. And, honestly, I found that it not even an issue. We are just over stretching it. Then I joined here and I must admit that I do not have any regret for that.

So, I consider myself a bit outsider or unwelcome guest to philosophy. I want to see how it tackles a common man and alien like me who did not learn it in a formal way. I want to know that; whether philosophy is just a serious and objective thinking only or it is such a phenomenon, which bestows upon to some chosen ones only; as it is the general perception of those, who live outside the realm of philosophy.

But one thing is sure about philosophy-

IT HAS A VERY BAD HABIT OF ROAMING AROUND WORDS.

As far as typist is concerned, I see him as an over smart person. I may be wrong but I feel that he must be associated with some kind of law practices, because he knows very well how to keep his argument alive; even knowing in his heart that he is on the wrong side. I am pretty much sure that he understands each and every word from you and one of my posts which was addressed to him. But, he chooses very carefully what portion he should answer and which one to avoid. The more I am seeing of him, is strengthening my belief that his whole ideology is inspired by OSHO, but only he knows whether it is true or not.

But, nevertheless, we must give him credit for that at least he tries to do something, instead of talking alone.

So, Nikolai, I feel that we should resume from where we left and let us see how this yoga of philosophers unfolds.

with love,
sanjay

I am neither an attorney or follower of Osho, but I applaud you for insulting me in new and creative ways I've not experienced before.

Nikolai wrote:Hi arising,

I read your NLP link and I was astonished. It was the first thing I've read that has described my changes in vision since I started meditating. I should say that this was not a deliberate technique like in the essay - it happened of its own accord and against all expectation. ...

I can't tell you how pleased I am by this. As I've never said these states of 'mind' can't exist, its the language that the westerner practitioner imports with the practices that I doubt, its the cultural religious baggage attached to the translations. I've always felt that they are not suitable to the western philosophical ear not least because we've heard this stuff already, and not just from the hippies and its new 'traveler' subset but from most of the 'mad' 'Germans'.

I'm even more pleased as the thoughts come from YOUR field, check-out how Grinder and Bandler started, I think you'll love 'em. If, with your experience, you don't piss yourself laughing at Frogs into Princes, I'm a bad judge of written character.

I've always explained it to myself in the Indian sense of opening up spiritual vision, or one's third eye. In your link it was about saturating the rods and cones.

Makes more sense in this milieu, yes? Easier as a starter for 'meditation'?

Although you might like this tale, a friend of mine has a truly 'earth-spirit' female friend, if you understand what I mean, you can just smell the spirituality, fairly untypical French female, well-educated from a prosperous local industrialist family that the continent still has more of than the UK, dropped-out of French life and traveled making a living from the New Age Health industry, worked as masseur, learnt many styles and has now committed to the full seven-year Ayurvedic Doctor qualification, in India and living exactly as the Indian student does. Sanskrit fer fucks sake! Anyhoo, met her when she was a few years in and she told me she was having some very weird stuff going on in her vision, i.e. visions, images, dragons, mandalas, all sorts of nutty stuff, this is not a naive women, she's done drugs so she 'knows' whats what with 'mental' states, living so healthily it'd 'kill' a 'westerner', so she's obviously perturbed. I'm fairly freaked, the contextual situation added to it but its to personal to talk about. So, I turn to NLP, "How is this thing happening to you?", "What are you seeing, feeling, hearing, in this situation?", then its observation and rapport all the way down, the bottom line is that she 'saw' these things in an area that philosophically I understood as the 'blind-spot' of vision, dropping the NLP, I postulated to her that what she was 'seeing' was in the area where there is no 'vision', so the things she was seeing were the creation of her 'mind' or 'brain' or a 'subconscious' in exactly the 'area' that the 'mind' has to make-up to complete the phenomenological vision that we have. Then back to NLP, so she may well be seeing these things, its what she wants to do about it thats the issue? Seemed to produce an outcome, she either thought I was mad or she 'solved' a part of her experience, either way she seemed different.

I recently noticed another trick with 'peripheral vision'. If you spin a bicycle wheel very quickly (while truing a buckle in my own case!) the grip and tread on the tyre merge into a smooth blur. But if you use your peripheral vision you can for a moment see the wheel's tread, in all its detail, as if it was completely motionless.

Or spinning at a range of rate than this can be observed? As stick your fingers in the spokes.

Your link essay says: "In everyday usage the eyes tend to employ foveal vision - the aspect of our vision where we focus upon specifics, and out of these, build and maintain our perceptual model 0f the world."

Sounds pukka to these ears.

In my case with the wheel, motion in time was part of this perceptual model and it can be perceptually halted at will. I wonder what this means for time?

From an NLP point of view, 'time' is difference and is amenable if you mean the 'past', to improvement. Philosophically I thought we'd decided that 'time' is a construct based upon change in matter and how long we live.

PS - I thought Sanjay's message to you was absolutely amazing. I hope you give it the attention it deserves.

Do you doubt I wouldn't? Given our interactions.

Typist wrote:

Typist stop! I've said it many times and this shall be the last.

Are you sure it's philosophy you want to do? Is it possible you wish to challenge everything, except your own conclusions? ...

And this is your problem, you have a bastardized version of what Philosophy is in your culture. From what I gather you think it the hippie gunus and the various American 'Eastern' gurus they based themselves upon. At best you have a version of Descartes Method of Doubt but I think you should read some of the books of those that the current crop of philosophers think are the Philosophers. So read Plato, Plato on Socrates, Aristotle, the Romans(if you are interested in applied Philosophy of Politics), the Scholastics(if you are interested in thought and 'God'), Spinoza, Leibniz, Locke, Hume, Berkeley, Kant, Hegel, Nietzsche, Schopenhauer, Sartre, Heidegger, Husserl, Marx, Russell, Wittgenstein, Ayer, Rand, et al, and last but not least, Merleau-Ponty, and probably a whole host of authors I've not heard of, but I'll give a big-up to Hofstadter, Pinker, Darwin, Aleksander, Grinder and Bandler, Turing, Zuse, Fredkin but there are too many to mention, you know who you are!

And this is your problem, you have a bastardized version of what Philosophy is in your culture.

Yanks are bad!

So read Plato, Plato on Socrates, Aristotle, the Romans(if you are interested in applied Philosophy of Politics), the Scholastics(if you are interested in thought and 'God'), Spinoza, Leibniz, Locke, Hume, Berkeley, Kant, Hegel, Nietzsche, Schopenhauer, Sartre, Heidegger, Husserl, Marx, Russell, Wittgenstein, Ayer, Rand, et al, and last but not least, Merleau-Ponty, and probably a whole host of authors I've not heard of, but I'll give a big-up to Hofstadter, Pinker, Darwin, Aleksander, Grinder and Bandler, Turing, Zuse, Fredkin but there are too many to mention, you know who you are!

Read a bunch of dead Europeans instead!

Typist wrote:Yanks are bad! ...

No, New-Age dipshits who comment upon Philosophy as tho' they know what it has been are 'bad'.

Read a bunch of dead Europeans instead!

I have no doubt that you know not what you talk about when you use the term "Philosophy" to justify your puerile thoughts. Take some humble pie Yank and read a few of them.

I am very small, and you are HUGE!

Typist wrote:

So read Plato, Plato on Socrates, Aristotle, the Romans(if you are interested in applied Philosophy of Politics), the Scholastics(if you are interested in thought and 'God'), Spinoza, Leibniz, Locke, Hume, Berkeley, Kant, Hegel, Nietzsche, Schopenhauer, Sartre, Heidegger, Husserl, Marx, Russell, Wittgenstein, Ayer, Rand, et al, and last but not least, Merleau-Ponty, and probably a whole host of authors I've not heard of, but I'll give a big-up to Hofstadter, Pinker, Darwin, Aleksander, Grinder and Bandler, Turing, Zuse, Fredkin but there are too many to mention, you know who you are!

Read a bunch of dead Europeans instead!

Um, several of those are Americans -- some even living. Doug Hofstadter, for example, is a New Yorker still kicking. Steven Pinker, Canadian-American, is still rattling around this old world. Richard Bander, John Grinder, both Americans, both still with us (like it or not).

Typist wrote:I am very small, and you are HUGE!

No! 'We're' small and those I mentioned are fucking HUGE!