Philosophy Now Forum

Arising_uk wrote: ↑Fri Feb 23, 2018 10:24 amBut the mind doesn't make up the body? The body makes up the mind.

There are two kinds of nothing.

1: the nothing that is the SELF

2: the DESPERATE nothing of the mind.

Dontaskme wrote:An idea can be seen as and through language written or spoken or through a material model. But these are recordings. Evidence appearing real. ...

But didn't you agree with me that they can also be seen by the creator of the idea, that is that they are images, sounds and feelings in one's head?

They are the appearances of no-thing...all appearances can apparently temporally be destroyed but Like a Phoenix Rising from the Ashes will arise once again...and again and again and again....

Well for sure but they arise in the head of the creator.

A mirror cannot see itself, ...

? Of course not as a mirror has no senses.

just as teeth cannot bite themselves. ...

Bang goes that two-hundred quid I just spent on a fitted gum shield to stop my teeth biting themselves at night then.

You are not the image in the mirror...

? I know, that is a reflection of me.

you are the mirror that cannot see itself except what it reflects from itself...illusory imageless images.

IF it was illusory surely it wouldn't reflect?

The person with an idea is an idea, it's a mirror image of the mirror that cannot see itself except what it reflects, as illusory imageless images, a mirage...appearing real.

What's having the idea of me?

No it's not in there either....have you ever seen a painting inside someones head?

No, but I've seen my painting in my head.

Nope, the picture that already existed was an idea....only ideas exist, and ideas are invisible.

But you agreed with me earlier that we can see ideas?

You mean like when you deny me same...good game isn't it trying to pin down what is actually really true or not true in reality.

But I've never denied you the right to state your ideas?

From your point of view I thought there was no 'actually really true' in reality nor even a reality?

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Fri Feb 23, 2018 10:31 am Yeah, I guess it is kind of sad you're still getting all hung up on fairy stories.

Actually, you are the one still getting lost in a fairy story that's only half true. You never managed to properly integrate the new understanding, and you can't really make others see it either by talking word salads.

Dubious wrote: ↑Thu Feb 22, 2018 11:22 pm Fuck them all!

Yeah, lets fuck those who hold to their own beliefs....while holding on to our own which is okay that we do that as long as it does not conflict with someone else's belief, but yeah, we will happily take our own beliefs as being our own invented given right to be ours and ours alone.. and fuck anyone else's belief.

The point is...if someone believes it is okay to go around killing people for a laugh...then what right would you have to oppose that belief that is their own given right to have ..just as yours is your own right? ..if you hold the opposite belief that it is wrong to kill people just for a laugh, then what gives you the right to hold to your belief and at the same time deny another persons belief?

Is that the sort of world you want to live in? ...can you live by that self imposed moral standard?..can you?

Because that's basically what you are saying here.

Dontaskme wrote: There are two kinds of nothing.

1: the nothing that is the SELF

2: the DESPERATE nothing of the mind.

If there are two kinds of nothing then there is not nothing?

What is this 'SELF' again?

Why do you find having a mind desperate?

Atla wrote: ↑Fri Feb 23, 2018 10:45 am

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Fri Feb 23, 2018 10:31 am Yeah, I guess it is kind of sad you're still getting all hung up on fairy stories.

Actually, you are the one still getting lost in a fairy story that's only half true. You never managed to properly integrate the new understanding, and you can't really make others see it either by talking word salads.

Resonance.

I don't give a toss about the word salad, it's all oil and vinegar.

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Fri Feb 23, 2018 10:46 am

Dubious wrote: ↑Thu Feb 22, 2018 11:22 pm Fuck them all!

Yeah, lets fuck those who hold to their own beliefs....while holding on to our own which is okay that we do that as long as it does not conflict with someone else's belief, but yeah, we will happily take our own beliefs as being our own invented given right to be ours and ours alone.. and fuck anyone else's belief.

The point is...if someone believes it is okay to go around killing people for a laugh...then what right would you have to oppose that belief that is their own given right to have ..just as yours is your own right? ..if you hold the opposite belief that it is wrong to kill people just for a laugh, then what gives you the right to hold to your belief and at the same time deny another persons belief?

Is that the sort of world you want to live in? ...can you live by that self imposed moral standard?..can you?

Because that's basically what you are saying here.

You forgot to mention what precedes "Fuck them all" and the reason for it. Is all of your deeply abstract wisdom informed by an even profounder hypocrisy that you quote only this? People like you and Nick are truly loathsome disgusting frauds; this makes it necessary to sometimes call a spade what it actually is and amounts to...fubar

Dubious, dontaskme is not a fraud as DAM makes no claim to clear and informed thinking, but rather claims spontaneous gullibility.

I am interested in whether or not posters such as Nick and DAM can learn to discipline their thinking or if not what motivates them to not do so.

Nick makes it clear that what motivates him is antipathy to "secularism" which seems to be what he calls those that he disagrees with, so Nick's notion of "secularism" means nothing except that he disagrees.

DAM is simply intransigent and I wonder why it is that DAM reads quite obscure stuff like Osho but not what is an easier read such as the thinking of Descartes as he sat beside his stove, or even good modern novels. New Age is lazy and a silly excuse for not doing the work.

Dubious wrote: ↑Fri Feb 23, 2018 11:04 am

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Fri Feb 23, 2018 10:46 am

Dubious wrote: ↑Thu Feb 22, 2018 11:22 pm Fuck them all!

Yeah, lets fuck those who hold to their own beliefs....while holding on to our own which is okay that we do that as long as it does not conflict with someone else's belief, but yeah, we will happily take our own beliefs as being our own invented given right to be ours and ours alone.. and fuck anyone else's belief.

The point is...if someone believes it is okay to go around killing people for a laugh...then what right would you have to oppose that belief that is their own given right to have ..just as yours is your own right? ..if you hold the opposite belief that it is wrong to kill people just for a laugh, then what gives you the right to hold to your belief and at the same time deny another persons belief?

Is that the sort of world you want to live in? ...can you live by that self imposed moral standard?..can you?

Because that's basically what you are saying here.

You forgot to mention what precedes "Fuck them all" and the reason for it. Is all of your deeply abstract wisdom informed by an even profounder hypocrisy that you quote only this? People like you and Nick are truly loathsome disgusting frauds; this makes it necessary to sometimes call a spade what it actually is and amounts to...fubar

Well it’s a good job I’ve stopped believing in untruths...what you think of me is non of my business.

I actually think Nick to be a very intelligent speaker...he’s not hating on any one..he’s just high lighting issues that apparently exist within the human psyche....

I just don’t get why people here can’t see that...

Nick_A wrote:Curious. You support external empiricism or scientific knowledge but refuse to believe it is incomplete for the human experience the seeker of truth is drawn to. ...

Not so, I'm just wondering why you think empiricists are not seekers of truth and what exactly you mean by a 'seeker of truth' and what 'truth' it is that you think is found?

As strong as you support external empiricism or science, you reject the conscious attempts to “know thyself” or have the inner experience of oneself. ...

Not so as I have some of my own in this respect but I just want to know what methods you would be using?

Could we ever verify the reality of eternal values without first experiencing them in the process of self observation? ...

You're begging the question here and whilst we're here could you given me some different 'eternal values' as the one's you've already supplied appear to have big problems when it comes to morality and ethics.

I’m convinced that methods of inner empiricism would be impossible to teach in modern universities. The temptation to corrupt them to establish politically correct answers would destroy the efforts. Eternal values cannot be prostituted since we are closed off to the experience of them. ...

http://cogweb.ucla.edu/Abstracts/Needleman_93.html

Well it's nice to listen to the organ-grinder for once and see how you have prostituted his ideas for your own needs.

I was a bit surprised that a philosophy professor begged one question, "What is the Soul?", but overall I can't see him deriding what is taught in academia the way you do? I'm also surprised he doesn't mention Phenomenology which appears to exactly fit his bill but do note that he says things are changing.

So those sincere seekers have to find others like themselves. This isn’t easy

You'll have to say what you think this method of 'inner empiricism' is? As schools and monasteries of mediation are abundant as are Guru's and don't forget those Yoga classes without which you'll not be meditating in any real sense.

You could also read the philosophers he mentioned, i.e. Gurdjieff and his disciple Ouspensky but I doubt what they offer would provide what you appear to hint that you want.

Arising often asks me what I would teach. This is meaningless without first acknowledging the human condition which defines reality as appearances. Only a few will be open to the process but who can teach it other than those who have experienced it and have experienced eternal values. Prof. Needleman concludes the article with:

It's really not meaningless as your Professor Needleman himself offers examples so all I'm asking is what it is you would be teaching, that is, what methods are you proposing?

Why are you so coy about this?

Science will establish facts and inner empiricism will establish objective values. ...

Still waiting for you to provide some examples of these values as the one's you gave appear to have unfortunate moral consequences.

But the world is against inner empiricism. ...

It really isn't, in fact in the world and it's history it has been the predominant education to the dearth of what we would call an education, although this does appear to be changing now.

It prefers indoctrination. ...

Which is what I think you are actually proposing as you would pre-determine what the seeker should be looking for.

Seekers of truth are forced to find authentic spiritual schools as opposed to the myriad expressions of charlatanism and escapism. So spirit killing under the banner of education rules the secular world. Secular education will attempt to indoctrinate the politically correct lie supporting the whims of the Great Beast while the authentic spiritual school develops the autonomous observer in pursuit of the experience of reality and eternal vlues. The young seeker of truth really has virtually everything against them.

I wish you would make your mind up, either you want to change our education system to teach your stuff or you don't, if you don't you really need to stop wasting your time on a false tirade against academic education and walk your talk by telling us your methods and techniques of 'inner empiricism', telling us what 'eternal values' you have discovered with them and better still start up a school that others can attend. If not then it's all just waffle presumably based upon some earlier bad experience with schooling and your pre-school indoctrinated religious beliefs.

Arising-uk mentions phenomenology with reference to Prof Needleman. I looked it up in Stamford Dictionary of Philosophy.

Phenomenology is commonly understood in either of two ways: as a disciplinary field in philosophy, or as a movement in the history of philosophy.

The discipline of phenomenology may be defined initially as the study of structures of experience, or consciousness. Literally, phenomenology is the study of “phenomena”: appearances of things, or things as they appear in our experience, or the ways we experience things, thus the meanings things have in our experience. Phenomenology studies conscious experience as experienced from the subjective or first person point of view. This field of philosophy is then to be distinguished from, and related to, the other main fields of philosophy: ontology (the study of being or what is), epistemology (the study of knowledge), logic (the study of valid reasoning), ethics (the study of right and wrong action), etc.

I am puzzled as to why phenomenology is classed as philosophy and not psychology. Also may we say "from the phenomenological perspective" as if to mean "from the subjective perspective" ?

Sorry, I forget that many who come to Philosophy forums haven't had the opportunity or taken the time to read any.

So Phenomenology is a relatively new term or field in philosophy and the philosophers who have really tried to run with it so far are Husserl and Merleau-Ponty(both really hard reads without the relevant philosophical background and not least because they were German and French respectively ). Although you could say Heidegger, Hegel and Sartre and even Gurdjieff and Ouspensky were attempting to create a Phenomenology or at least doing it.

This'll get me derided in many circles but L. Ron and Bandler and Grinder from NLP both created what I would consider fairly easily accessible attempts at creating techniques for doing Phenomenology if anyone is interested. Although take much of L.Ron's stuff with a pinch of salt but his Dianetics is a tour de force in many ways.

Also I think Bandler and Grinder's stuff more an Epistemology than anything else but Phenomenology is a pretty undefined field at present, if it is one at all, so NLP could fit as an attempt to create a 'language' or description of subjective experience that most would recognise or agree to(which is my definition of the subject).

Belinda wrote:I am puzzled as to why phenomenology is classed as philosophy and not psychology. Also may we say "from the phenomenological perspective" as if to mean "from the subjective perspective" ?

I think because Psychology is about mental illness and others and Phenomenology is about one's healthy self. Although I do think some of the schools of Psychology are heading this way as a treament for mental health. That and that it just came out from Continental Philosophy and I'm sure they were influenced by results from Psychology et al, M-Ponty surely was.
p.s.
With respect to the 'phenomenological' versus the 'subjective' distinction, I think they'd like to say that if it was discovered to be 'phenomenological' then it would be 'objective' in a way that 'subjective' wouldn't.

Arising_uk wrote:

Sorry, I forget that many who come to Philosophy forums haven't had the opportunity or taken the time to read any.

p.s.
With respect to the 'phenomenological' versus the 'subjective' distinction, I think they'd like to say that if it was discovered to be 'phenomenological' then it would be 'objective' in a way that 'subjective' wouldn't.

So I might urge Nick to cease observing from his subjective perspective and instead adopt the phenomenological perspective?

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Fri Feb 23, 2018 11:21 am
Well it’s a good job I’ve stopped believing in untruths...what you think of me is non of my business.

I actually think Nick to be a very intelligent speaker...he’s not hating on any one..he’s just high lighting issues that apparently exist within the human psyche....

I just don’t get why people here can’t see that...

I see that, and probably some others see that as well.

What YOU can't see, however, at least you give no evidence of it, is that Nick_A and you hold strong beliefs that can't be verified and you want us to accept your views as truth; and we hold views that can be and are verified by senses and logic, and yet you deny their validity.

It's not even that your (Dontaskme's and Nick_A's) views are opposed to ours. (Which they are, but that's not the main point.) The most disturbing about your posts, and what we, the rest of the board hold grievance against, is that you place value on completely unknowable things, and call it "knowledge" and "truth".