One meshuggener at a time, Obvious, one at a time, but one-by-meshuggener-one!
Obvious wrote:Humans have a remarkable capacity to outsmart themselves and see mysteries where no mysteries exist. The philosopher of the bloody obvious assumes that reality is exactly what it appears to be but this doesn't mean that he can allow himself any complacency with respect to his understanding of it. His entire comprehension of the world around him must first be filtered through the prism of his own consciousness, a treacherous cesspit of half-baked ideas, idle fantasies and common or garden misinformation. The default mindset of such a person is continuous doubt. Separating the wheat from the chaff is the work of a lifetime but the true connoisseur of the bloody obvious holds fast to one ultimate talisman as the beacon of truth.
I suggest this is an air-filled paragraph. Of the sort that Hobbles takes issue with. You are literally blowing out some hot air and with it some bits of breakfast.
I call to you're attention this remarkable paragraph written by a
doppelgänger no doubt:
The indigenous Australian aborigines had a very sophisticated philosophy known as the Dreamtime, which focused on visual, symbolic and generally non-representational art as well as dance and the oral tradition. To the first Australians human beings were story-tellers who had to find the meaning of their own existence in the stories that they told. These stories also had to tell them how to live in a harsh and unforgiving landscape and the fact that they did so successfully for almost 60,000 years meant that these were very very good stories. These were not childish stories of gods to worship as we would understand the practice and there was certainly no myth of immortality. The stories were all about the ever-changing tides of natural events which governed their daily lives and how they should adapt to them in order to survive. Nature was not to be tamed but to be comprehended, so even in our modern era we have much to learn from these primitive folk. However the most profound thing that we can learn from these remarkable people lies in the way they defined the meaning of life itself. To the Australian aborigine the meaning of life could only be defined in terms of the journey and never in terms of the destination. The simple beauty and nuance of this perspective never fails to move me. When the Europeans invaded this continent they judged these people as sub-human and systematically set about the task of slaughtering nearly all of them. They did this in god's name.
To be precise, we'd have to say that 'philosophers', of the sort you define, are extremely recent arrivals (in comparison to the 60,000 years you reference). I also think that we need to say that we really have no good reason to trust any philosophy, or philosopher, since according to our own definitions such 'merely' philosophers erect mental systems, within a mental space, and convey ideas back and fourth between mental structures. The work of philosophers, and philosophy, can be and often is abstract, removed from 'life' and reality. Can it be compared to the total-life-picture of the Aborigines? I don't think so. Not to say that is bad. It just is though. It has to be taken into consideration when one talks of such things.
On the other hand - and to focus on your own example - we have references to people who carve out for themselves 'visual, symbolic, and non-representational' (or representational) art and dance which expresses and articulates a way and means to relate to Reality. It is hard to label it, isn't it? It is strange, magnificent, impenetrable, majestic in its own special way, would not you say?
Would you agree with me that this is a very different thing than, say, the work of a typical European philosopher? those we might name? In my view we'd be forced I think to say it is. One is an
idea-system, constructed in abstract words, the other
a way of life in which words are not relevant. But something else
is. What? How would you, as Aussie wanker, as Marmite stuffed philosophical crêpe suzette, how would you speak about that? But more important What is your experience in this area? Because that is where the rubber hits the road, no?
So, if we 'humans have a remarkable capacity to outsmart themselves and see mysteries where no mysteries exist', why is it that you value the experience/idea of these folks? Hmmmm? Are you saying that to an Aboriginal there were or there are no 'mysteries'? Of that sort that their boy-children are initiated in?
Are you saying that the stories and representations are
not expressions of the understanding of mysteries of life? of the reality in which they live? which is their matrix, their sole and unique existence-point? their very platform? And is that real or is it unreal, my precious pontificator?
I think that at least in some large sense, your privileged 'philosophy' runs up against a big problem when it confronts a total existential-view-platform, and I also suggest that it really does not quite know what to
do when this occurs.
So when I focus on 'existence existing' and allude to a mystery difficult to fathom, I can sincerely say that I am speaking of something above and outside of your privileged and specific philosophical/language platform. I refer to something that is not like a simple sign, like a simple written indicator, but something that requires an
entering into. I would compare it to the sort of mystery, or fact of experience if you wish, that is referred to as Dreamtime. Other terms could be used, and other cultures have different ways to speak about it, so don't get hung up in the word.
This is a good area for you to roll around in your extraordinary contradictions! and lose few fleas in the process.
And for Heaven's sake man, wipe your chin!