aphilosophy

[Arising_uk]

!Squawk!

How many times with this pet pop-psychological theory!?

Please stop assigning your motivations to others!

And for your 'gods' sake take a short course in, if not philosophy, at least critical thinking as your lack of it is an embarrassment upon a philosophy forum.

[Typist]

Please take responsibility for your own reading experience. There's no need for me to manage it for you.

[chaz wyman]

Its a shame people like Typist can lurk on this forum - lowers the tone of the place, and reduces the credibility ad reputation of the Magazine.

[Typist]

Ha, ha! Yes, I'm sure the Chaz tone is just what Rick Lewis was looking for when he opened this forum.

[Arising_uk]

Please take responsibility for your own reading experience. There's no need for me to manage it for you.

You do realise that you are just aping the point I put to you when you proudly declared that you were putting chaz and I on ignore?

[Arising_uk]

Ha, ha! Yes, I'm sure the Chaz tone is just what Rick Lewis was looking for when he opened this forum.

Well, at least chaz can speak philosophy whereas I doubt rick was looking for the idea of 'aphilosophy' to gain currency. Bit of an own goal I'd have thought.

[Arising_uk]

...
I think the real irony here, is that I am probably the only person on this forum that has read your essay ...

Nope, for my 'sins' theres two of us.

Personally, I did finish it but I got stuck right at the beginning with the assertion that philosophy is to teach us how to die?

At the stage where I have to read it a few more times before I could comment as I'm not sure of the point its trying to make as he doesn't really define the issue nor his solution I think, although reading lancek4's replies here may help clarify what he's trying to say.

Not sure I'd call it an essay but maybe thats to 'academic' of me, although I do appreciate that work was put into it.

[chaz wyman]

...
I think the real irony here, is that I am probably the only person on this forum that has read your essay ...

Nope, for my 'sins' theres two of us.

Personally, I did finish it but I got stuck right at the beginning with the assertion that philosophy is to teach us how to die?

Interestingly enough, that is the point that got me objecting.

At the stage where I have to read it a few more times before I could comment as I'm not sure of the point its trying to make as he doesn't really define the issue nor his solution I think, although reading lancek4's replies here may help clarify what he's trying to say.

Not sure I'd call it an essay but maybe thats to 'academic' of me, although I do appreciate that work was put into it.

It struck me that his understanding of philosophy is too idiosyncratic to be meaningful, and his conception of it is more like religion, perhaps?

[bran]

Its a shame people like Typist can lurk on this forum - lowers the tone of the place, and reduces the credibility ad reputation of the Magazine.

Whoa, now. The title of this thread is aphilosophy. Don't you think it might be a little incom0plete without the person who coined the phrase?

Bran

[bran]

I've got a suggestion for many of you. I can dig the Zen-ness of aphilosophy, but I come to this forum to argue and cuss, not to meditate. So I bid this thread adieu.

Bran

[Arising_uk]

Whoa, now. The title of this thread is aphilosophy. Don't you think it might be a little incom0plete without the person who coined the phrase?

Bran

Take a look at who started this thread Bran, it was not the 'aphilosopher' but one of those he derides. It was started exactly so that Typist could present his 'aphilosophy' as all he'd been doing up to then was to not present it. And he's still not doing it now.

[Arising_uk]

... I can dig the Zen-ness of aphilosophy, ...

Bran

Yes but thats the problem with this 'aphilosophy' is it not? As it attempts to sound 'zen-like' and have 'Zen-ness' but unlike Zen Buddhism it states no end-goal nor any clear practices to achieve Zen's enlightenment. Thats all we are asking from the 'aphilosopher'. Instead he waffles about how its not philosophy but upon his own admission has never studied nor read any philosophy, is this supposed to be some koan?

[chaz wyman]

Its a shame people like Typist can lurk on this forum - lowers the tone of the place, and reduces the credibility ad reputation of the Magazine.

Whoa, now. The title of this thread is aphilosophy. Don't you think it might be a little incom0plete without the person who coined the phrase?

Bran

Absolutely not, no.

[chaz wyman]

I've got a suggestion for many of you. I can dig the Zen-ness of aphilosophy, but I come to this forum to argue and cuss, not to meditate. So I bid this thread adieu.

Bran

If 'zen-ness' means incoherent and meaningless, then I agree. But I wonder what you think apihilosophy is??

[Arising_uk]

chaz has replied more concisely in the other thread than I could but I'll put my thousand-cents in here anyway.

...
Just as we can explore thought via the disciplines of philosophy, we can also explore outside of thought via the disciplines of "aphilosophy", ie. simple exercises which reduce the rate of thought. ...

Which you never quite get around to stating. Whereas I, a lowly budding philosopher, have - How to have a reduced rate of 'thinking'. Care to state yours?

But take a look at your words, "explore outside of thought" with "reduce the rate of thought", it's this that drives us idiot philosophers to distraction at your thinking, as your 'aphilosophy' appears to contradict itself in its very words! If this is what you mean by 'aphilosophy' how can you expect it to be taken seriously upon a philosophy forum. And I assume you do wish it to be?

Its also, 'explore thought via some of the disciplines of philosophy' as not all the disciplines of philosophy are interested in such things.

This "aphilosophy" is the mirror image of philosophy. aPhilosophy is to philosophy as day is to night, male is to female, something is to nothing etc. Philosophy and aphilosophy each explore half the human experience, together they make up the whole.

Here's another one! By your own admission you've not studied or read any philosophy, so immediately 'half' this statement is already bollocks! But you portray it as some great insight, which by the lights of your 'aphilosophy' so far I suppose it is.

aPhilosophy can be explored by philosophy only to the extent that it is seen that aphilosophy can't be explored by philosophy. The point of the intellectual conceptual part of aphilosophy is to undermine and display the irrelevance of the intellectual conceptual part of aphilosophy.

Obviously what I said above applies to this as well but I can only just at this, "The point of the intellectual conceptual part of aphilosophy is to undermine and display the irrelevance of the intellectual conceptual part of aphilosophy.", as what you admit is that everything you say is irrelevant!

What very often happens, and what I was rebelling against on other forums is that for many, the intellectual conceptual part of aphilosophy is worshiped, instead of being seen for what it is, mostly a distraction.

And yet you still maintain that there is an "intellectual conceptual part of aphilosophy", it's just that you don't like the way others 'worship' it?

If you reply to this post with a "Yes, but..." this will be evidence that you haven't yet seen the irrelevance of the intellectual part of aphilosophy, and still think you can get to aphilosophy through philosophy.

We've been trying to tell you that the "intellectual part of aphilosophy" is irrelevant and confused and muddled.

This is extremely normal, and I am encouraging you in this classic error by continuing to type about aphilosophy. This mistake of mine, and my premature exasperation, are my bad.

This really gets my goat, as not only does it show that your 'aphilosopy' can't provide whatever it is you appear to seek, and I guess a lack of "exasperation" would be one of its attributes, you think that by saying you're a wanker it excuses you from continuing to be one!

If you are interested in aphilosophy find a way, your way, to take a break from typing and thinking. Everything else is just a way to put that exploration off.

And yet you! The arch 'aphilosopher' cannot do so, so why do you think we ought to take your 'aphilosophy' with any credibility that it can deliver whatever it is that you don't say it can deliver?

What is it that it's supposed to deliver? A freedom from the existential condition? A freedom from religion or spirituality? Truth about something? Satori?

If you discover you aren't interested in aphilosophy, then your attention is better directed at regular philosophy, which obviously contains many interesting areas that can be explored, debated, analyzed, thought about etc..

Again! How do you know this? Will you ever be doing this for yourself? In the interest of exploring "half the human experience" as "together they make up the whole."

It probably won't interest you but I suspect a few of us know what you are trying to promote, its that you're such an idiot about it and the conclusions you draw from these experiences of the possible states of body and their effect upon ones 'mind' are laughable from a descriptive philosophical point of view, i.e. a phenomenological point of view, let alone the laughable effect it has upon your reasoning.

Anyone who has taken LSD knows that one can have profound 'spiritual' and phenomenological experiences. Anyone who has learnt NLP can reach the states you describe as 'reduced thought' as it gives practical advice to have them. As can the meditative practices and its here where you really annoy me, as I doubt anyone here thinks it not beneficial to take time out to be calm, but with respect to things like Zen or Buddhist meditation you make such light of such things. I've heard you say, there are 1000's of ways to meditate, just stop thinking, etc, but its so simple to say and not so simple to do. Your words are those of the typical western gnu and they are insulting to the thousands of years of such eastern practices, i.e. you ignore that those practices have a clear technique and method to achieve the states of body they describe, and they involve hard graft, hours of physical yoga or their equivalent to get the body into condition just to start to be able to meditate in the way they describe, but you, a typical westerner glibly yak on about it. I seriously doubt you've got near to what they do, as if you did you'd not be here doing this. Or if you have then you'd just be saying what it is you did that got you to the states you describe. But lets give you the benefit of the doubt and its not the satori practices you describe but just a general way of experiencing a 'reduction of thought' and the benefits that could accrue from being calm and peaceful or open and receptive to the bodys sense without the mediation of its memory representations, you still don't give any practical way or description of how you do this. You just make these gnomic statements about "if you're not doing it its because you don't want it", "its the other side of thought", etc, as tho' these are koans or deep insights into anything! You are exactly like those you say you rebel against but I doubt you can understand this.

In the end tho' its your sheer arrogance that you pronounce upon philosophy without having any idea of what you are talking about that takes the biscuit. Why not try to state what it is you think you are addressing with your advice rather than try to bracket something, which by your own admission, you don't know about. That way you may get some real interest in your thoughts.