Philosophy Now Forum

Typist wrote:And now, I'm off to spend this holiday in the holy forest with the holy wife!

Have a good time. Don't do anything I wouldn't do!

Nikolai wrote:Have a good time. Don't do anything I wouldn't do!:D

Ha, being unenlightened comes with advantages too you know.

Well, before we can go to the holy forest, we have to first feed the 9,000 holy squirrels currently in residence here at the Holy Rat Hotel, so I have a bit more time.

Another example. Buddhists.

We can observe how the Buddhists embrace science, testing etc.

The Buddhists realize that if they wish to have a conversation with the modern world, they need to translate their ancient understandings in to the language of the modern world. So instead of saying, "you must have faith", they say, "sure, wire me up to the machine, and let's see what happens".

This willingness doesn't by itself prove that any Buddhist conclusion is correct. But it does establish some credibility, and an openness in the audience.

I'm not promoting Buddhism, which I don't really know that much about.

Rather, I'm promoting clear mindedness, a practical approach, and a willingness to do the necessary translations. As the Martin Luther King and Buddhism examples seem to demonstrate, such an approach is possible.

Which Buddhist says you must have faith?

Arising_uk wrote:Which Buddhist says you must have faith?

I'm not that informed, but none that I'm aware of.

More pointless wanking.

I'll remind you again, you are on a philosophy board, as such we think words should mean things. Now I understand you think them pointless but I dont'. So your bland assertion about the buddhist should be challenged now matter that you think words mean what you say they do. Especially since you appear to think you know much about the buddhist.

Anyhoo! What brings you back? I thought you'd flounced of into the big bad world in a pique about a topic on the forum.

Arising, you don't even understand the words you are quoting. You are SO DESPERATE to do a debunker dance, that you aren't actually reading what you're hoping to debunk.

No where did I say Buddhists advocate faith.

As usual, you are clogging up every thread with pointless wanking. Such a waste of intelligence.

Here's the quote again, with bold included for those deep in to the booze bottle.

So instead of saying, "you must have faith"

Especially since you appear to think you know much about the buddhist.

Especially since I repeatedly said I DO NOT know much about the buddhist.

I'll remind you again, you are on a philosophy board, and if you don't have something useful to contribute, you can always consider just shutting the fuck up.

Typist wrote:Arising, you don't even understand the words you are quoting. You are SO DESPERATE to do a debunker dance, that you aren't actually reading what you're hoping to debunk. ...

Please, don't start with your pet psychology again.

No where did I say Buddhists advocate faith.

As usual, you are clogging up every thread with pointless wanking. Such a waste of intelligence.

Here's the quote again, with bold included for those deep in to the booze bottle.

So instead of saying, "you must have faith"

Please keep your fantasies to yourself.

I'd get the full quote to show the context if I could be bothered but I'll just tell you, you said the buddhists would say, if they weren't in the modern world, to "have faith", I say you talk bullshit.

Especially since I repeatedly said I DO NOT know much about the buddhist.

And yet you think you can say what the buddhists would say and why they do what they do?

I'll remind you again, you are on a philosophy board, and if you don't have something useful to contribute, you can always consider just shutting the fuck up.

I think it useful to challenge bullshit.

So why you back? Your morality about paedophilia not enough to deter your needs and wants?

Hi typist,

Typist wrote:Point being, my suggestion is that if you wish to discuss enlightenment in the context of a philosophy community, you might base your approach on those things that philosophers are interested in, like evidence, testable tangible facts etc.

I've told you what has happened to me - these are tangible facts as far as I concerned. But you don't believe me! Lots of people likewise didn't believe in MLK - they thought he was a bad man, wanted him dead.

Typist wrote:If a stable state of X is the definition, then the stability of the fruits of that state should be demonstrated. Dodging and weaving just isn't going to cut it.

Unfortunately your X doesn't translate into anything in particular in the real world. Take your love for your wife -it expresses itself in a multitude of different ways, but your love is what inspires them. You wouldn't want people to think that your love was ably demonstrated by the card you give on her birthday, or the kiss on the cheek after work. Your love transcends these mere actions.

Typist wrote:But surely you can see you've come to the wrong place if your goal is to change conclusions by use of faith. I'm not saying faith is wrong, only that it's a poor tool of choice in this particular environment.

I would be careful in assuming that philosophers have no need for faith - they use it all the time but happen to be in denial on the subject. So they are not unable to give what I ask of them -they are unable to admit that they give it.

Typist wrote:The Buddhists realize that if they wish to have a conversation with the modern world, they need to translate their ancient understandings in to the language of the modern world. So instead of saying, "you must have faith", they say, "sure, wire me up to the machine, and let's see what happens".

As I've said many times, I have no objection to the testing - it would be of immense interest to psychologists, anthropologists etc. My concern would lie in the interpretation. If you think that by measuring the brainwaves of a monk you are measuring enlightenment then that would be a grave, grave error. Enlightenment is infinity, utterly transcendent, and it can't be reduced to any one act, behaviour trait, bodily act etc.

So there is perfect willingness to do the testing. But do not make the mistake of thinking that your results are able to capture enlightenment. This would be the same mistake that people always make about the spiritual life - and that is to reduce it to the 'thises and thats' and the 'does and don'ts' of the religions.

Typist wrote:Rather, I'm promoting clear mindedness, a practical approach, and a willingness to do the necessary translations. As the Martin Luther King and Buddhism examples seem to demonstrate, such an approach is possible.

What seems like clear-mindedness to you is muddy-mindedness to someone more wise. Its probably no accident that many spiritual people, from the Zen Buddhists, Sufis like Rumi to Christian Mystics like St John of the Cross have all opted for paradox as the best device to explain their spiritual vision. Paradox is not only the most honest, as it accounts for the contradiction between the worldly and spiritual view, but it also deters people from the belief that the intellect can grasp the vision.

Typist wrote:I'm not promoting Buddhism, which I don't really know that much about.

Because Buddhism is a philosophical/psychological system rather than a theistic system there is no sense of tension between science and religion and their rival explanatory narratives - Buddhists are therefore much more open to science AND religion. The Dalai Lama is conspicuously involved with psychologists and neuroscientists, and other faith leaders. But,unfortunately, any Buddhist would baulk at what you suggest - that we can measure enlightenment. They astonishment would be right up there with the Christian, should you claim to measure God.

Best wishes, Nikolai

Good morning Nikolai!

I've told you what has happened to me - these are tangible facts as far as I concerned. But you don't believe me!

Please don't take it personally, but....

1) If I were to believe you based on the evidence provided, I'd be in the position of believing everybody on the Internet in regards to everything.

2) You claim to be above and outside of positions, but yet argue determinedly for a specific position. Your actions are no different than anybody else on the forum, except that you promote your position with more skill than the average.

3) If there is no need to manage anything, why should we be so concerned with managing enlightenment? You've not been able to provide a convincing answer.

4) You resolutely insist we chase something, while ardently resisting any attempt to determine whether this something actually exists.

5) You've not really explained why we should chase anything, when we are so blessed already.

And so on...

I would be careful in assuming that philosophers have no need for faith - they use it all the time but happen to be in denial on the subject. So they are not unable to give what I ask of them -they are unable to admit that they give it.

I don't object to the idea that everything eventually boils down to faith in something or another. But you've not made a compelling case as to why we should have faith in your proposal. So you're right, we are not unable to give faith, but in this case, unwilling.

As I've said many times, I have no objection to the testing - it would be of immense interest to psychologists, anthropologists etc. My concern would lie in the interpretation.

People are looking for real changes in their real lives. That's what drives interest in enlightenment. Whether this goal is valid or not, if you can't address it by some credible method or another, you don't have an audience.

If you think that by measuring the brainwaves of a monk you are measuring enlightenment then that would be a grave, grave error. Enlightenment is infinity, utterly transcendent, and it can't be reduced to any one act, behaviour trait, bodily act etc.

As the person making the assertions, the burden of proof, or at least the burden of a good faith effort to document your claims, falls to you. You've asked us to engage in the philosophic process, and this is the philosophic process.

What seems like clear-mindedness to you is muddy-mindedness to someone more wise. Its probably no accident that many spiritual people, from the Zen Buddhists, Sufis like Rumi to Christian Mystics like St John of the Cross have all opted for paradox as the best device to explain their spiritual vision. Paradox is not only the most honest, as it accounts for the contradiction between the worldly and spiritual view, but it also deters people from the belief that the intellect can grasp the vision.

If the intellect can not grasp the vision, a proposal I'm inclined to agree with, then the value of a Jnana Yoga approach is brought squarely in to question, as is the value of my 37 thousand aphilosophy sermons.

However, these activities can still have a rational basis, if we are prepared to admit we engage in them for no other reason except that we find them fun. As example, a game of handball. The ball goes boing, boing, boing against the wall for an hour, accomplishing nothing except our own exercise and entertainment.

If we can embrace the value of ordinary exercise and entertainment for themselves, without the need to make up some other glorious story, then we have a rational honest activity.

Because Buddhism is a philosophical/psychological system rather than a theistic system there is no sense of tension between science and religion and their rival explanatory narratives - Buddhists are therefore much more open to science AND religion. The Dalai Lama is conspicuously involved with psychologists and neuroscientists, and other faith leaders.

Right, agreed.

But,unfortunately, any Buddhist would baulk at what you suggest - that we can measure enlightenment.

What the Buddhists appear to be clear minded enough to see is that nobody really cares about enlightenment. We care about whether we are happy or not.

We seem to agree the Buddhists have made a good faith effort to define and test happiness, in partnership with scientists.

It would be fair to argue that such testing techniques are still in a primitive state, and that we have much to learn yet. It would be fair to argue it's too soon to jump to any big conclusions regarding the practical value of Buddhism. I could easily agree with such reservations.

What I'm saying is that Buddhists have earned some credibility with me, and perhaps many others, with their willingness to define and test their assertions. They don't retreat in to a lot of mystical fancy talk when challenged, but step forward and embrace the challenge.

My proposal is that anybody who wishes to discuss enlightenment with philosophers will take such an approach, if they wish to have an audience.

Hi guys,
I like the time traveller from the past attempting to convey the light analogy.

I pose a question in the form of statements:

What is the relation of technology to knowledge?

I propose that our present knowledge' which describes the whole event of switch, light bulb, light, electricity, etc.. Is but one particular way of speaking.

The time traveller going back to his time is describing exactly the truth of the light event from the furture when he references 'the light god'.

It is only in our conception now which poses our little time thought experiment that locates the past 'god' explanation as 'incorrect' or 'ignorant'

But indeed the analogy is pertinent to decribe the limitation of discourse to describe reality.

duszek wrote:ArisingI do the Walk of Power and Grace all the time ....

Good then you're half-way there.

I can hardly think of anything to add ....

If you could think of it what would it be?

The outcome I set myself was: do the exercise and collect feedback for Arising.
...
I tried to hear everything: cars passing in the distance, human voices (and what they said), birds, noises, shuffles ...

I wear no glasses and see the world like an impressionist painting, that is I need to guess a lot.

When a piece of music takes possession of my mind it keeps running in my head for days or weeks. I have no registered music and no device to make registered music sound.

What now, Master ?

Thank you for thinking of me in your outcome. Given what you've said above do you think you did the exercise as described? So do you think you've achieved the outcome?

I appreciate the feedback you have given me and there is much of interest in your words I'd like to discuss but your reply pointed out to me a lack of explanation of the relationship between the technique and outcomes, so I'll concentrate on this.

... Are there better outcomes one should try ? (what to answer to X on the forum X, what to say to X next time one sees X, what to cook for supper, is it better to go to lecture A or B) ...

By outcome is meant, a state or a situation one wishes to change or just a problem, but are not achieving it yet. Doesn't have to be huge.

So the technique is used to change ones state towards the problem or situation by changing the physiological state associated with it.

So you think of the issue or state or situation before you start the exercise, by this is meant that your truly get into the state or situation you wish to change, i.e. you see, hear, feel, smell, etc the situation, you become associated with it, then you stop, forget or shake-out of the state and start the exercise.

Once you achieve the state available via the WoPaG and having ones attention on peripheral vision, you then consider the original state or situation you wished to change and notice what is different from this state, then you restart the exercise for a short while then finish. It changes the way you think about the state or situation you wanted to change and allows one a chance of achieving it.

The other way you can use it is as an outcome generator or producer of things to think about. So you don't know or have an outcome you wish to change.

Set it as "I wish to encounter something of significance to me". Start the exercise and then wait until something in your vision strongly appears to your foveal attention. When this happens stop and think about what it means to you. Can be interesting.

The idea of using ones peripheral vision is to help still the internal voice, if you can already do this then all power to you but from what you say you may uses images instead of voice to think, if so then just practice using peripheral vision. I'm also puzzled by something you said, do you need glasses?

With respect to your description of trying to hear everything, I'm not sure about peripheral listening but I'm pretty sure that it would not involve trying to hear what is being heard, e.g. what someone is saying or whether the sound was a car, etc. More not doing this. Do you make an image when you hear these sounds?

Also, do you actually hear the music in your head, i.e. you hear the drums, strings, brass, etc, or do you make a noise to your self?

Hope this makes sense.

Hi Nikolai and typist,
Typist,
You said-Are you saying we are not qualified to comment on something we might call "enlightenment" until we have experienced it ourselves?

In ideal situation, we should comment only after real experience. The only liberty the philosophy may take, is to visualize the experience. But, there should be a self imposed limit for it.

Let me explain.

Let us imagine that there are two different persons. One is living in the desert where temperature crosses 50’c while the other one is in hill station. If we ask them to visualize the weather condition of Mount Everest, then who will able to conceive it closer to the reality?

A man, sitting in the desert, can not conceive the climate of Mount Everest but the other one has fair chance of predicting it accurately; simply because, experiencing the 0’c, he can conceive what it would be at -20. Standing at the ground floor, we cannot see what is there at the terrace of a skyscraper. But, we can see up to two three floors for sure. The same is true for visualization. We can visualize only one-two steps in advance, which may be very close to reality and thus, able to analyze it but the same could not be said for the entire process. This should be the limit of imagination and speculation in philosophy.

Yes, the limit of visualization differs from person to person as it subjected to one’s state of experiences. From ground floor, we can see up to 2nd or 3rd floor at best, while standing at 10th floor, is possible to have a glance at 11th of 12th.

You said-If you are suggesting we should believe in events we haven't experienced ourselves based on faith, then we have moved from philosophy to religion.

No. let me put my definition of faith.

I see belief as a mother and experiences/witnessing as a father. If the semen of father is strong enough to make the mother pregnant and then, if the mother is strong enough to carry the child in her womb for long time enough, so the child would mature before coming into existence, thus, the child of faith is born. Even after taking birth, it needs to be cared properly by his parents otherwise it will die or became ill. It should he fed and looked after, unless and until, he becomes able walk and talk. If the parents enable him to walk and talk properly, then he would be able to walk the talk for sure.


From this angle there is no difference between any kinds of knowledge. There is neither religion nor science, but, knowledge only. This is precisely the science of philosophy. Belief is assumption; while faith is proven state as it must be supported by some kind of evidence.

I strongly feel that philosophy is unable to present its case properly. It is misconception that all scientific premises are supported by concrete evidences and without the help of philosophy. Let us have a look at some its notions those are well accepted; though not by all, but in general.

The big bang theory. It is yet to be proved physically in true sense. I do not think that it ever could be. There are some hints, here and there, on which this theory is based. Science cannot claim that it has happened for sure. In the first place, science does not explain that; from where that singularity came, in which the Big Bang happened. Science has taken the notion of that singularity for granted and that is against the basic rules of science. If science can have the liberty of taking the existence of that singularity for granted, then it has no moral right to object when religions take the existence of God for granted. Logically, both are wrong.

The uncertainty principle. This is the essential ingredient of quantum theory. But, in my opinion, it is just a philosophical principle not a scientific one. It is all in the mind, not in the real world. It claims that the position and speed of a subatomic particle cannot be known precisely, because the photon thrown at that particle will disturb its original position.

I thought very hard about this many times. As far as accuracy of measurement is concerned, it seems logical, but this notion has nothing to do with the actual position of particle in real terms.

Furthermore, instead of throwing only one photon at a time, if we throw two identical photons, having same relativistic mass, from two opposite directions, in such a way that they cancel out each other, and assume that they hit the particle at the same time, then their total impact on the particle will be zero. If we assume that we have a mechanism that could produce these opposite set of photons at a fix time interval, then we can measure the position and velocity of the particle precisely and simultaneously. Thus, the uncertainty principle does not hold, but, I am not sure how it goes with physics. Perhaps, a learned physicist is able to examine it.

The Occam’s razor. This theory has nothing to do with science as it a purely a philosophical premise. Science is using it since long when it does not find any other way to escape.

Virtual particles. I have read ‘the history of time’ by Stephen Hawkins. He describes many types of virtual particles like bosons, gluons and some others; by those the basic forces like gravitation, strong and weak nuclear forces, transfer their energy from one particle to another. I do not think that the science has any right to postulate any such thing which it holds ‘virtual’ in the first place. It is simply philosophy not science.

This is to say that I found scientists smarter than the philosophers. The man like Stephan Hawkins, declares philosophy useless, and yet postulates ‘virtual’ particles. Almost all of theoretical physics is nothing but philosophy; Newton, Einstein and Heisenberg are perfect example of this. All of their premises have philosophical roots.

It looks to me that science usurps philosophical premises very smartly, when it is required and also slams a kick at the backside of philosophy, when she demands its fair share of recognition.

The basic problem with philosophy is that, neither it wants to join hands with science, nor with religion. As it wants to remain in the castle of books only, thus, living in the real and materialistic world of science, becomes difficult for it. But, when religion invites it cordially to be his guest, it rejects the offer saying that you are untouchable to me.

Typist, it may be the yoga of believers, but in the philosophical way, for sure.

Nikolai,

It is a general view that science had improved the state of mankind and we must accept it. Just have a look around us. Science is everywhere. We are even talking on the net with the help of it. We cannot deny its contribution. We may call it technology or something else but it does not matter. Science is science and it does not have any corner left vacant for philosophy, even in its backyard. Hence, philosophy has to make its own now. Although, like you, I am also against being underweight or overweight at any particular king of knowledge, but my friend, the world does.

If you ask a student of 5th standard, you will find that he will be familiar with Newton and Einstein. But Nikolai, how many people are aware of Kant? What to say about others, I consider myself a bit above a layman in general terms, but honestly, I came know about him about three months ago, when I joined this forum. Then I read a bit about him and found that he is genius, outstanding and perhaps, a step ahead than Einstein. I am sure, that if you ask 100 persons around you, who seem learned to you, you will not found more than 1-2, which are familiar with Kant. But, all of them must be heard of Einstein.

In real world, no one wants to hear about philosophy. The general perception of philosophy is that it is nothing but words, words and words and moreover, the difficult ones.

We should neither be get angry nor irritated by the questioning of typist. He is presenting the real mindset of today’s general perception. He is not the only one. Nikolai, there are millions of typist out there. They want the proof and let us accept and face it. On the contrary, he is obliging us by giving us a chance to prove ourselves. Do not fall for his words. The real typist, under the cover of his words, is not that much harsh. He may talk in very friendly tone, but that typist will be of no use; without his sharp and blunt questions. Quality does not comes cheap and I have no hesitation in saying that he has an exceptional sense of criticism, thus, it takes more to satisfy him.

I must tell you that I have both of believe and faith in me that spirituality can be proved by both ways; philosophically and scientifically too. And, I mean it.

with love,
sanjay

Nikolai, there are millions of typist out there.

{{Sob}}, and I thought I was special!

But, it turns out I am very ordinary. And this raises a question.

Should I strive to be special? Should I chase some kind of becoming agenda, and attempt to be something different, something bigger, something better, like rich, famous, or enlightened etc? Should I climb the mountain, so to speak?

Or...

Should I set aside that journey, sit down right here where I already am, and learn to enjoy this place, this ordinaryness?

I don't have to achieve ordinaryness, because I'm already ordinary. I don't have to fight and struggle, plan and worry. I don't have to look for experts to guide me up the mountain etc etc, because I'm already at my destination, ordinaryness.

All the time and energy I would have used to climb the mountain and become something special, I can now invest in to simply being ordinary. I'm free to just lay back on the ground, let go of all the effort, and just be, right here, where I already am, ordinary.

Having discarded all the wasted effort, I'm now free to sit quietly, observe closely, and discover what is special about being ordinary.

They want the proof and let us accept and face it.

Speaking for this ordinary typist only, I don't really want or expect a perfect proof.

What I want, is to see all the effort and intelligence that is currently being spent on explaining why evidence is impossible, reinvested in to looking for ways to develop evidence.

I want to see an effort to serve the audience that discussions like this are supposedly intended to serve. I want fancy talking holy men to come down off the glorious esoteric mountain, and speak to ordinary people in ordinary language about ordinary things, the kinds of things that matter to ordinary people.

Any holy man is entirely within his rights to decline this invitation. If they wish to remain up on the mountain, that's ok, because way up there by themselves, they will be easier for we ordinary people to ignore.