Philosophy Now Forum

From what I've read in this thread, I believe your assertions have been interesting and well presented.

Thank you. Interesting and well presented is my goal, so in your case at least, I shall declare success.

So regardless of whatever further abuse and name calling gets thrown at you, in my opinion you've made a good point in this thread. And now I'd better go hide before rude and juvenile insults start flying in my direction!

The juvenile junior high talk serves the purpose of illustrating where all ideology is ultimately headed.

This includes aphilosophy, as I assure you aphilosophy forums are little different from this one.

It was before you arrived.

Ever thought it a coincidence that its all the forums you visit?

That you said you get banned from most of them?

I can see why this thread is called "aphilosophy". There's no philosophy going on here. Just a bunch of posters arguing about their personalities. Why don't we all go away and come back when we get our shirts on, guys. I think aphilosophy is kind of a bad name for a rather interesting concept that I'd like to know more of the pros and cons about. Since I last visited, this site has degenerated into name calling and juvenile behavior, egos fully engaged, and minds totally disengaged. Reminds me of my home when the hounds are in for supper. Oh my sweet Jeez!

Bran

You're free to ask Typist questions about it Bran. Maybe you'll get some answers that will improve the understanding of it, as its why EH started this thread I guess.

bran wrote:I can see why this thread is called "aphilosophy". There's no philosophy going on here. Just a bunch of posters arguing about their personalities. Why don't we all go away and come back when we get our shirts on, guys. I think aphilosophy is kind of a bad name for a rather interesting concept that I'd like to know more of the pros and cons about. Since I last visited, this site has degenerated into name calling and juvenile behavior, egos fully engaged, and minds totally disengaged. Reminds me of my home when the hounds are in for supper. Oh my sweet Jeez!

Bran

Trust me, Bran, I do understand your frustration, and share it. Allow me -- if you will -- to go back to the beginning (well, of this thread, anyway). I asked, then, a couple of questions about "aphilosophy" as I'd seen it expressed by Typist. There are interesting notions, and they probably do deserve exploring, but not until we can at least get a modicum of clarity. Let me repeat those questions here, and follow that immediately with Typist's first two reponses. And then let me note that those original questions have been ignored for going on 200 posts so far. Interesting, and that's why I share your frustration.

Aphilosophy, so far as I am able to understand it from the various posts in which Typist mentions it, appears to be an appeal to "stop thinking, and just observe." So, the first question to be asked is obviously: "Is this a correct characterization of 'aphilosophy?'"

The second question I might pose immediately after is a little more complex, but equally deserving of an answer from the "aphilosopher." The question requires a small prologue:

We, as humans beings, have a toolbox of things by which we can understand our world, ourselves, and how we fit within it. The tools in the box consist, so far as we know, of some physical senses (let's not quibble about the number) that allow us to directly perceive the world, along with an intelligence that allows us to process that which we learn from our senses so as to acquire a richer understanding than our senses alone can provide. Now, it is also true that the senses (however many there may be) are limited in their scope: we see and hear only within a very small range of frequencies; we cannot directly sense by touch, taste or smell any number of things, as the experience would kill us; and so forth.

The question, then, is "why would we give up so important an ability as thought in order to rely on some very limited senses? What do we hope to learn in so doing?"

And that is a question only the aphilosopher can answer, I think.

This was Typist's first response:

Typist wrote:Just a quick housekeeping matter, and then we can forget this and move on to your other more interesting points.

It is nothing less than TOTALLY ABSURD to be continually accused of being stingy with my perspectives. There is absolutely no evidence of this premise, and page after page after page after page of endless evidence to the contrary. Seriously, I'm really not kidding, are you guys all on LSD?

If yes, why are you not sharing???

If I'm not a good writer, if I'm not clear enough, if you don't get it yet because you've only studied this topic for about 30 minutes, ok, no problem. We can work on all that together.

But c'mon guys, enough already with the "we can't get Typist to talk" gibberish, ok?

Alright, I've had my say, yet again, 47 billion words and still counting. Moving along now, I'll drop it if you will.

And this was his second (leading me to suppose we're never going to understand what he means by aphilosophy):

Typist wrote:

EvangelicalHumanist wrote:The question, then, is "why would we give up so important an ability as thought in order to rely on some very limited senses? What do we hope to learn in so doing?"

A good question, with a simple answer.

The suggestion is not to give up thought entirely. aPhilosophers have to pay their phone bills just like everybody else.

Rather, the suggestion is to explore beyond the boundaries of thought, in order to gain some much needed perspective, and understand thought better.

If I had sex 57 times a day, every day of my life, I wouldn't know what horny was, and thus wouldn't really understand sex.

You see, when Typist suggests that we "explore beyond the boundaries of thought," he does not give any real suggestion as to how a creature who's primary mechanism for exploration is precisely "thought," might accomplish that.

And then let me note that those original questions have been ignored for going on 200 posts so far. Interesting, and that's why I share your frustration.

Before we dive in to the details, please let me go on record, yet again, as saying that this notion that I'm not forthcoming on this topic, is COMPLETE UTTER RIDICULOUS RUBBISH.

First you guys say, "Why do you bring this up in every thread?" and then five minutes later you say, "Why do you never talk about it?"

Here's why your frustrated. Because you want to be frustrated. Simple, ey?

If you were sincerely interested in exploring the questions you claim to want answers, did it ever occur to you you could research them on your own, and then bring your insights back to the thread to share?

evangelicalhumanist wrote:You see, when Typist suggests that we "explore beyond the boundaries of thought," he does not give any real suggestion as to how a creature who's primary mechanism for exploration is precisely "thought," might accomplish that.

You see, when EH suggests he doesn't know what meditation is, and isn't smart enough to learn about it on his own, and sits there on his fat ass waiting for somebody to spoon feed him answers he doesn't want, so he can spit them up in your face, and then calls it intelligent dialog, well...

What's a good word for that?

Here's why I haven't told you how to explore beyond thought EH.

You don't want to know, as you yourself have said repeatedly.

I have NO COMPLAINT with you not wanting to know, that's your business, and I'm not an evangelist. Really, no complaints there.

But this is a garbage in, garbage out operation. And with this post, you're getting the reply you deserve.

]WOW, that was a great little sub-thread thread these past couple pages. So, it seems we have one type of aphilsophy here,as pointed out: nonsense! so funny though; so great.

I disagree with what I surmise was Typists (kinda) "just shut your mind off and just observe" type of philosophy (aphilsopohy). Maybe a better term for that would be "un-philsophy". Maybe. since a philosophy cannot be anything that occurs outside of thinking or speaking; if there was something outside of thinking (like just observing) then as soon as I began to refer to it by speaking, I would have totally ruined it. I have to refer it to Rudolf Otto, "Idea of the Holy".

I re-refer to my essay for anyone who wants to read it.
Here is a link:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/62621120/A-Philosophy

So now im gonna get back to what may be aphilosophy, and address Chaz here, finally:

BTW: Chaz this is just the type of feedback I like: an appeal to clarify terms.
But I would ask if you have read the essay or just looked for a problematic statement. Next I would ask if you understand what Im saying, then if you agree or disagree with what Im saying.


CHAZ: What do you mean by ' Death is understood within as ‘unethical’ arena; death is anti
-human, it works against the efforts of what it is to be human: death is evil."?
A:if you have read the essay - I have attempted to distinguish between what I see as two different types of philosophy: methodological or technical, which I suggest is a defective philsophy, based in the certainty of death and the uncertainty of life; and philosophy proper which teaches one how to die, for life is certain, death uncertain. I have implicated that ethics lay in the former form and that this ethics is an ethics of managing against death: death as the "anti-ethical" arena which informs the methodoloigcal form of our "ethical", which is to conclude that we manage against the certainty of death because it exists as the epitome of evil -- because life is uncertain, managing is what "makes good" of life: a truth-value.

I implicate aphilosophy ironically from both orientations upon philsophy. If one is oriented in the philsophy of methodology, the philosphy that asserts a proper way to manage against the certainty of death, then 'aphosophy' could appear as its anthithesis: just observe without thinking. But it could also be that this former philsophy is not philsophy but 'aphilosophy. If one sees methodological philosophy as mere technology, then philsophy becomes the proper term of itself, and the technology becomes 'aphilosophy'.

CHAZ:And in the following paragraph who is 'we'. Would that be you and the queen?
A:"We" would be those who are involved in the investigation proposed in the essay; Me, the author, and those who are reading the essay and likewise participating in the journey of understanding.

CHAZ:And how do you justify this howling non sequitur? ;"To assert that something philosophical is novel is to assert the certainty of death, which then provokes the individual against it, and to promote a proper way to live."
A:I believe I just addressed that above. Do you understand that philosophy offers nothing new? or do you think it is always coming up with new ideas?

This is odd too;"...philosophy cannot teach us how to live without denying another their right to live
–even with our best intension"
Ethics always includes and excludes; it always denies another's right to live by asserting THE proper way to live, THE proper way to manage life against the certainty of death, which is implicated at ever turn in the uncertain life. It implicates the prioritized group who is correct, and the powerful group that will make all others come into thier group and agree with thier proper truth.

No idea what you are trying to get at here![/quote]
Do you now? If you do, do you agree or disagree?
Anyone else have a take on what aphilosophy may be?

Rather, the suggestion is to explore beyond the boundaries of thought, in order to gain some much needed perspective, and understand thought better.
**
You see, when Typist suggests that we "explore beyond the boundaries of thought," he does not give any real suggestion as to how a creature who's primary mechanism for exploration is precisely "thought," might accomplish that

I tend to agree with EH here. Ill put another angle in the counter:
If I had an experience that is beyond thought, how am I not encompassing such an expereince with my thoughts such that I know that it was at a boundary?

or , how might I 'think' that I have gone 'beyond' thought?

If there is an experience that I have that is at or near or beyond the boundaries of thought, do I not come back into myself such that my thoughts define what such as experience was?
How can say that I have has an experience that has been only observance? Is not that i have had such an experience dependant upon the thinking and thoughts that I use to come into knowledge of that experience and define it in such a way as "of the boundary"?
if I have had a personal experience that is not of thought, of at the boundaries of thought, then I submit that it is only in my thinking that I have somehow approached a boundary of thought that I have done so, and inso, I have remained exactly within the center of my thinking.

lancek4 wrote:]WOW, that was a great little sub-thread thread these past couple pages. So, it seems we have one type of aphilsophy here,as pointed out: nonsense! so funny though; so great.

I disagree with what I surmise was Typists (kinda) "just shut your mind off and just observe" type of philosophy (aphilsopohy). Maybe a better term for that would be "un-philsophy". Maybe. since a philosophy cannot be anything that occurs outside of thinking or speaking; if there was something outside of thinking (like just observing) then as soon as I began to refer to it by speaking, I would have totally ruined it. I have to refer it to Rudolf Otto, "Idea of the Holy".

"just shut your mind off and observe" sounds like a recipe for the religious. If there were any thing positive about taking a view that reduces the excess of rational abstraction then philosophy got there way before Typists silliness. For living your life in an experienced and engaged way we already have existentialism, and its cousin phenomenology.



I re-refer to my essay for anyone who wants to read it.
Here is a link:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/62621120/A-Philosophy

So now im gonna get back to what may be aphilosophy, and address Chaz here, finally:

BTW: Chaz this is just the type of feedback I like: an appeal to clarify terms.
But I would ask if you have read the essay or just looked for a problematic statement. Next I would ask if you understand what Im saying, then if you agree or disagree with what Im saying.


CHAZ: What do you mean by ' Death is understood within as ‘unethical’ arena; death is anti
-human, it works against the efforts of what it is to be human: death is evil."?
A:if you have read the essay - I have attempted to distinguish between what I see as two different types of philosophy: methodological or technical, which I suggest is a defective philsophy, based in the certainty of death and the uncertainty of life;

Okay - you may well be familiar with the term strawman. You seemed to have devised a chimera - a philosophy that does just not exist, in order to satisfy the twin pillars of your argument. I don't know any branch of philosophy that I recognise with this description. No one is basing their philosophical position on the certainty of death etc...


and philosophy proper which teaches one how to die, for life is certain, death uncertain. I have implicated that ethics lay in the former form and that this ethics is an ethics of managing against death: death as the "anti-ethical" arena which informs the methodoloigcal form of our "ethical", which is to conclude that we manage against the certainty of death because it exists as the epitome of evil -- because life is uncertain, managing is what "makes good" of life: a truth-value.

Much of philosophy is based on the search for how to live the good life, and there are various branches that are more or less concerned with that, but once again I don't recognise your categories.


I implicate aphilosophy ironically from both orientations upon philsophy. If one is oriented in the philsophy of methodology, the philosphy that asserts a proper way to manage against the certainty of death, then 'aphosophy' could appear as its anthithesis: just observe without thinking. But it could also be that this former philsophy is not philsophy but 'aphilosophy. If one sees methodological philosophy as mere technology, then philsophy becomes the proper term of itself, and the technology becomes 'aphilosophy'.

The a- prefix doe not imply and antithesis, that would be antiphilosphy. The a- prefix implies a lack of philosophy. Say if Typist were asexual he or she would have no interest in sex; being an aphilospher would indicate not an anti-philosphy, but an absence of it. This might involve thinking, as philosophy and thinking are not the same things. But the idea you can 'just observe without thinking', is an amusing idea but you might as well say you can live without breathing, or have ears without hearing. You can shut your eyes and not see, but breathing, thinking and hearing is not an option. I think even Typist thinks sometimes.

CHAZ:And in the following paragraph who is 'we'. Would that be you and the queen?
A:"We" would be those who are involved in the investigation proposed in the essay; Me, the author, and those who are reading the essay and likewise participating in the journey of understanding.

Sounds like the Royal 'we', if you know what I mean. You seek to include others as if what you are saying is unproblematic.


CHAZ:And how do you justify this howling non sequitur? ;"To assert that something philosophical is novel is to assert the certainty of death, which then provokes the individual against it, and to promote a proper way to live."
A:I believe I just addressed that above. Do you understand that philosophy offers nothing new? or do you think it is always coming up with new ideas?


As there was once a time when there were no humans, then it is the case that because the only philosophers are human, then everything said by a philosopher was at one time NEW.
Additionally, as I do not know everything that has ever been said by philosophy, and I am not likely to have read every word of it before I die, then for me (and most mortals), there is always something that is new to me in philosophy. When I conclude that there is nothing new , then I have given up on my life, or am pretending that I know all there is to know - which is bollocks. So to pretend that there si nothing novel about the contents of philosophy is bollocks.
None of which addresses your point; in fact it is the complete converse of it, as I have indicated that death is the only time I might consider that there is nothing new in philosophy.
"To assert that something philosophical is novel is to assert the certainty of death" seems like gibberish to me. Please explain what you mean! THen you can explain what you mean by what follows it - if you can.




This is odd too;"...philosophy cannot teach us how to live without denying another their right to live
–even with our best intension"
Ethics always includes and excludes; it always denies another's right to live by asserting THE proper way to live, THE proper way to manage life against the certainty of death, which is implicated at ever turn in the uncertain life. It implicates the prioritized group who is correct, and the powerful group that will make all others come into thier group and agree with thier proper truth.

No idea what you are trying to get at here!

Nope - sorry but this is simply not true. Please state a philosophical scheme that does this and we can discuss what you mean.
No one is saying that the 'proper way to live manages against the certainty of death except the religious, unless you mean something else by it.


Do you now? If you do, do you agree or disagree?
Anyone else have a take on what aphilosophy may be? [/quote]

I think you need to back up your claims about philosophy with the mention of specific philosophies, or specific philosophers.
I no expert in philosophy but I have studied quite a few; Plato , Aristotle, Epicurus, Hobbes, Spinoza, Hume, Darwin, Newton, Galileo, Russell - to be able to blag my way, but I simply do not recognise your understanding of what philosophy is.

It sounds to me as if a-philosophy has been covered more thoroughly in eastern philosophy. I'm not seeing/reading anything new here. I like the concept, but I feel like I have read it in better sources. I understand that someone with a philosophical bent, might tend to become a little too analytical and left-brained in their pursuit of knowledge. But doesn't Zen offer a better remedy for that? What am I missing?

Bran

Typist wrote:

evangelicalhumanist wrote:You see, when Typist suggests that we "explore beyond the boundaries of thought," he does not give any real suggestion as to how a creature who's primary mechanism for exploration is precisely "thought," might accomplish that.

You see, when EH suggests he doesn't know what meditation is, and isn't smart enough to learn about it on his own, and sits there on his fat ass waiting for somebody to spoon feed him answers he doesn't want, so he can spit them up in your face, and then calls it intelligent dialog, well...

Well, now we're getting somewhere! I'll avoid the ad hominems (like "fat ass") and just concentrate on what we've learned. You just boiled "aphilosophy" down, it would seem, to "meditation." Is that all it is? And is there only one way to meditate, in your opinion? Is it necessary to sit in the lotus position and chant "om, om?" Or would being still and quiet in the still of first light in the forest be at all good?

Here's why I haven't told you how to explore beyond thought EH.

You don't want to know, as you yourself have said repeatedly.

I have NO COMPLAINT with you not wanting to know, that's your business, and I'm not an evangelist. Really, no complaints there.

But this is a garbage in, garbage out operation. And with this post, you're getting the reply you deserve.

Again, let's examine "explore beyond thought." As I said, there are many ways to do that. However, unless the experience is brought into thought, which is where this person I call "I" lives, it is lost. Perhaps not to those subconscious areas of my brain of which "I" am unaware, but still lost "up here" where I live.

So, as I've said before, I do my own sorts of non-rational experiencing, in my own way (I'm just going to presume that's acceptable, that aphilosophy doesn't prescribe specific punishments for incorrect procedure). And I can recall those moments, too, but not without processing them in thought -- which inevitably changes them. So that for which you "explored beyond thought" is irrevocably lost after the experience. One should, I suppose, live continually "in the moment" (are you Eckhart Tolle, by the way?), but then, one wouldn't have thought to buy groceries for dinner. That would require stepping out of the moment and considering the future.

bran wrote:It sounds to me as if a-philosophy has been covered more thoroughly in eastern philosophy. I'm not seeing/reading anything new here. I like the concept, but I feel like I have read it in better sources. I understand that someone with a philosophical bent, might tend to become a little too analytical and left-brained in their pursuit of knowledge. But doesn't Zen offer a better remedy for that? What am I missing?

You're not missing anything. I agree with everything you said above. Nothing new, better sources available, zen a well known option, agree with all.

"aphilosophy" is just a term I made up on the spur of the moment in an attempt to translate the inquiries you refer to in to language suitable for this forum.

There are, and have long been, millions of people studying this subject. I'm just one of these millions, expressing the subject in my own choice of words.

As a compulsive typoholic, I'm interested in language and the translation process. As example, if we had attempted to have this discussion in new age style lingo, that style of speaking would have triggered the allergies of most readers here. If we had tried to use 300 year old Indian ways of expressing this, the topic would have immediately become hopelessly unclear to this audience.

Whether my choice of words is interesting or helpful is a conclusion each reader can come to on their own. My reasoning is that so long as readers are clicking on this thread and replying, then I must be putting on some kind of show they wish to attend. When readers stop replying, the thread will end, and we'll go on to some other subject.

We used to have a poster on the forum named Nickolai, who commented that those who are interested in this will already get it, or get it quickly. And those who aren't interested in it will chew on it for years and get nowhere. Thus, discussions have a limited value.

Nickolai is wise, and I am not, so...

... on with the show.

Well, now we're getting somewhere! I'll avoid the ad hominems (like "fat ass") and just concentrate on what we've learned.

Well, ok, some readers would indeed probably prefer we cut the crap, and we should try to accommodate them. But still, I was eager to see what you'd come up with to top my rather unimaginative "fat ass". Oh well, another day...

You just boiled "aphilosophy" down, it would seem, to "meditation." Is that all it is?

I generally don't like to use the word "meditation" as it almost always leads directly to this...

And is there only one way to meditate, in your opinion? Is it necessary to sit in the lotus position and chant "om, om?"

That is, the word "meditation" has been branded in many people's minds as some kind of kooky thing. That's understandable, but it's a distraction I'd hope to avoid. So, I prefer to discuss the subject in a more generic way.

To answer your question, imho, there are a thousand ways to gain some control over our thought rate. The main thing is to find a few ways we like, and explore them as desired.

Anybody who is sincerely interested will quickly discover the net is full of technique suggestions. Those who aren't sincerely interested will sit back and whine, "why won't you tell us, why won't you tell us, ad naseum, ad naseum."

If and when I discover evidence of a sincerely interested reader, I'd be happy to get down to the business of discussing technique. I've yet to meet such a reader here, and so am sitting back, patiently waiting the arrival of such a person.

Again, I'm not an evangelist, and if a reader wishes to explore this further, they are going to have to do most of the work. It's their brain, not mine, and I'm not a spoon feeding babysitter.

Again, let's examine "explore beyond thought." As I said, there are many ways to do that.

Right, agreed.

However, unless the experience is brought into thought, which is where this person I call "I" lives, it is lost. Perhaps not to those subconscious areas of my brain of which "I" am unaware, but still lost "up here" where I live.

First, you are making this claim based on, as best we can tell, little to no experience. Thus, you might wish to put question marks at the end of your sentences.

If your words above were a question, they would be a good question. A good answer to such a good question would be...

Try it. Do your own research. See what you come up with.

There is no other person on earth who can conduct this research for you. There is no authority who you should look to, other than reality itself.

aPhilosophy is called aphilosophy, because this is not philosophy. You don't read it in a book, analyze it, and thus understand it.

You do it. Or you don't.

You leave the land of abstractions, and focus your attention on reality, or you stay in the land of abstractions.

I'm sure you'll understand that "exploring beyond thought" can not be done on this forum. The best we can do here is put on a dog and pony show circus that may tickle reader's interest. The best we can do here is have big arguments which will demonstrate for the 99 billionth where all ideology, which is built from division, eventually leads to.

And I can recall those moments, too, but not without processing them in thought -- which inevitably changes them. So that for which you "explored beyond thought" is irrevocably lost after the experience.

It's true. Thinking about the sex we had yesterday, is not the same as having sex. Agreed.

So are you reasoning, therefore we should not bother with sex?

One should, I suppose, live continually "in the moment" (are you Eckhart Tolle, by the way?),

Ha, ha, that's funny. If you'd seen the way I've ripped Tolle worship to shreds on other forums, you'd appreciate the irony.

Apologies to sensible mature readers who may be more than a little annoyed with the juvenile side shows within this thread. Hopefully we're a bit back on course now?

Typist wrote:...

Apologies to sensible mature readers who may be more than a little annoyed with the juvenile side shows within this thread. Hopefully we're a bit back on course now?

I thought you said that the course was a "dog and pony show circus"?

And what "course"? You did not start this thread, it was started to try and get you to make more sense about your 'aphilosophy', when are you going to do this? But it does look like you are going to do what I said, i.e. listen to others and say 'Yes that's what I meant, etc', as you have no actual comprehensive understanding nor explanation for what you say or claim. Hence you just parrot a stock set of phrases over and over in response to pretty much everything, what a gnu.