Philosophy Now Forum

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Tue Aug 01, 2023 6:43 am There's a power relationship inherent in the guru relationship that for me the word teacher does not capture. If someone is your teacher, you may well give up certain time and actions to their leadership. You call someone your guru and that's a whole 'nother ballgame. The word has things like veneration built into it. 'Master' gets as some of this.

Yes, with that I fully agree. And I’ve seen it first hand. Total self-submission.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Mon Jul 31, 2023 5:41 pm here you are on a philosophy forum, steeped to the gills in Occidental philosophy and literacy, but arguing for I don't even think that you can actually clarify.

I'm arguing against your rigidity and your insistence that such is necessary for everyone.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Mon Jul 31, 2023 5:41 pmIt is a really bizarre position you seek to argue for.

No, it's not. Imposed rigidity has always been a downfall for humans.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Mon Jul 31, 2023 5:41 pm You propose *seeing beyond* but then you have never succeeded in articulating this mystical realm that you refer to.

It's not mystical. I suggested that you see beyond whatever position you might be tied to, because you were insisting that other people must follow a particular path and see in specific ways as you do. It's ridiculous to think that the Universe is as small and specific as any individual sees/operates.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Mon Jul 31, 2023 5:41 pmYou are not capable of articulating what you mean.

Yes, I am. Most people understand me very well. The fact that you (or a few other rigid-positioners here on this forum) say that you don't is more a matter of you defending your beloved rigid positions.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Mon Jul 31, 2023 5:41 pm to have even an elemental grasp of Occidental philosophy you need to have read at least some Aristotle and Plato. You are denying that this is the case -- essentially.

Wrong again: I'm not denying that is the case. I'm saying that there is more philosophy than Occidental philosophy, and I am not interested in Occidental philosophy. It seems you have been saying that one must read certain books and talk about the limited version/style of philosophy that you do. Everyone on this forum sees philosophy differently -- how is that wrong?

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Mon Jul 31, 2023 5:41 pm

Lacewing wrote:To get our convoluted and noisy creations and limitations out of the way, and then the authentic spiritual dimension is accessible for anyone naturally.

Well, perhaps, in some sense that is so. But I think it is a great deal more.

You can think/experience whatever you want, just as I can.

For me, it really isn't complex. Human beings add on all sorts of things -- conditions, outcomes, stories, requirements... whatever serves them. It varies from place to place and time to time, and it's all over the spectrum of possibility. So which one is right? Or even necessary? Why would any authentic spiritual dimension that encompasses all need to be identified/defined/established/limited by any particular set of self-serving human beings?

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Mon Jul 31, 2023 5:41 pmThe last year+ has been axial in a general transformation of my thinking. I will not say that I did not have intuitions that have now been confirmed, but I do not think that the actual intellectual work could have been avoided.

Terrific. I've experienced transformation too.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Mon Jul 31, 2023 5:41 pmIt would be interesting to ask people What are the core ideas you work with?

Yes, it would. Do it.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Mon Jul 31, 2023 5:41 pmSome ideas are like powerful levers that affect you at a point that you cannot quite discern until many years later. That is why I made reference to certain books and authors whose ideas had that sort of power. What I a referring to is (I surmise) unintelligible to you since it does not refer to your chosen domain.

Are you really this stupidly dismissive? Of course I understand what you're talking about. I don't have to be on your path to understand what you're referring to. I've had similar experiences. People share understandings in many different languages. So why are you being such an asshole? Referring to my vagina and the other rude crap in your previous post. Get over yourself, Alexis.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Mon Jul 31, 2023 5:41 pm

Lacewing wrote:Embrace your books that have served/entertained you at various stages, but keep moving on to see more beyond them too.

Sage advice offered by one who has never read!

Another of your distortions. I simply do not read what YOU do. My thinking/understanding has been expanded and empowered by many books and teachings. I am (and have always been) inclined to move onward and see more... and that's how I've personally discovered: there's always more. Truly, how could there NOT be?? Human history clearly shows this to be the case for humankind's understanding and potential. So, to me, it appears to be an obvious and worthwhile consideration whenever we think we've reached a glorious end of one sort or another.

So then, you admit to all my points. Finally!

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Mon Jul 31, 2023 5:45 pm

Well, since you've read them, you can tell me the earth-shattering summary.

Despite what you think it does not work that way.

Oh, but it can. Why must you limit the possibilities?

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Mon Jul 31, 2023 5:45 pmTo delve into some author's thought is a complex experience.

Not everything has to be slogged through to grasp understanding from it. This, perhaps, is just the process you love and feel accomplishment/growth from.

Things can work much differently for other people -- and there are other ways of receiving understanding, Alexis. Just because you are not utilizing them, does not mean they don't exist for other people.

I've repeatedly had the experience of awareness (about a person, circumstance, environment, idea, outcome) come to me suddenly, and then it quickly plays out or is confirmed just as I 'received'. I've also had the experience of having a conversation with another, without speaking the words out loud. Such experiences have shown me more possibility despite what you are insisting doesn't exist. And it makes sense to me that such capability exists throughout all. Perhaps it's just a matter of attuning to it.

Do you seriously think that human development isn't going to leap forward in profound ways that do not rely on all the notions of the past? Maybe you are focused on seeing such evolution as a terrible thing because your ego needs to see your own path as relevant. Your path IS relevant to your experience -- and that's really good enough. No need to build a monument to it.

Personally, I'm not into gurus. I'm into sharing awareness (back and forth) with all kinds of people. I also receive what teachers have to offer, and I give back (if we're in person), but I do not put them on a pedestal of any kind. Being open and loving and full of gratitude is a great gift to exchange.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Mon Jul 31, 2023 5:45 pm There are some encounters I have had that have changed my life's direction.

Then you know it's possible. Do you think that's over?

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Tue Aug 01, 2023 5:42 pm So then, you admit to all my points. Finally!

Distortion and avoidance serves you, much as it serves I.C.

Why do you suppose that is?

Lacewing wrote: ↑Tue Aug 01, 2023 6:16 pm

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Tue Aug 01, 2023 5:42 pm So then, you admit to all my points. Finally!

Distortion and avoidance serves you, much as it serves I.C.

Why do you suppose that is?

Because I was only joshing. I just do not have the time to respond. And anyway we will only end up turning in the same circles.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Tue Aug 01, 2023 9:22 pm

Lacewing wrote: ↑Tue Aug 01, 2023 6:16 pm

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Tue Aug 01, 2023 5:42 pm So then, you admit to all my points. Finally!

Distortion and avoidance serves you, much as it serves I.C.

Why do you suppose that is?

Because I was only joshing. I just do not have the time to respond. And anyway we will only end up turning in the same circles.

Yes, I know... and I used it to make an honest statement about what you do... which you further confirmed.

You have the 'time' and are willing to 'turn in circles' when you want to say something. But when you make false statements, you ignore/refuse addressing the responses to those. You also ignore questions that challenge rather than serve you. Then you crow about your knowledge of Occidental philosophy as if it means anything coming from a person who does these things you do. It's like I.C. talking about Christianity. Nice demonstration... thanks.

Lacewing wrote: ↑Thu Jul 20, 2023 5:20 pm So... what have we concluded here?

1. Nietzsche is the greatest philosopher that ever lived, and was entirely wrong.
2. One can lead an atheist to evidence of God, but one cannot make him think.
3. Americans are tedious (as pointed out by the Grim Reaper) and "philosophy" is ridiculous which is Y Americans have taken over this forum.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Thu Aug 03, 2023 12:07 pm One can lead an atheist to evidence of God, but one cannot make him think.

So you are saying that 'thinking' is what is required to see evidence of God?

To the contrary... 'thinking' is what makes many people give up the ideas of theism.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Thu Aug 03, 2023 12:07 pmAmericans are tedious and "philosophy" is ridiculous which is Y Americans have taken over this forum.

Then, are you once again using this forum to tediously boast that you are better than 'Americans' and to claim that your beliefs are superior to philosophy, although philosophy is the purpose of this forum?

Lacewing wrote: ↑Sat Aug 05, 2023 4:30 pm

attofishpi wrote: ↑Thu Aug 03, 2023 12:07 pm One can lead an atheist to evidence of God, but one cannot make him think.

So you are saying that 'thinking' is what is required to see evidence of God?

To the contrary... 'thinking' is what makes many people give up the ideas of theism.

No, Lacewing, many thinkers don't simply "give up" the ideas of theism - they either refine them or replace them with something more plausible. And that's because the alternative (the "chance" hypothesis) is even more ridiculous than the "intelligent design" hypothesis.

And in regard to...

"...what have we concluded here?..."

...well, I'm not sure what "we" have concluded, but what I have concluded is that it is next to impossible to penetrate the hardened outer shell of a closed mind.
_______

seeds wrote: ↑Sat Aug 05, 2023 6:14 pm No, Lacewing, many thinkers don't simply "give up" the ideas of theism - they either refine them or replace them with something more plausible.

Hmm... well, that's how I describe it for myself. I was immersed in theism, and then I gave it up because it didn't make sense. I don't feel like I replaced it with something at that time. Rather, I was open to 'not filling the space' -- so-to-speak.

Over time, I've refined my ways of describing the connections and possibilities I see, but I still feel inclined to stay open to not filling the space. Anything might be possible. I'm just not interested in worshipping or following human ideas of gods which seem gold-plated to embellish the tarnished man-made creations/structures beneath them.

seeds wrote: ↑Sat Aug 05, 2023 6:14 pmthe alternative (the "chance" hypothesis) is even more ridiculous than the "intelligent design" hypothesis.

Yes, that doesn't make sense either.

Lacewing wrote: ↑Sat Aug 05, 2023 4:49 pm

attofishpi wrote: ↑Thu Aug 03, 2023 12:07 pmAmericans are tedious and "philosophy" is ridiculous which is Y Americans have taken over this forum.

Then, are you once again using this forum to tediously boast that you are better than 'Americans' and to claim that your beliefs are superior to philosophy, although philosophy is the purpose of this forum?

It wasn't my intention to 'boast' about being 'better' - the point I was making is the pedantic subject matter where pages and pages of talk about things that could be summed up in a paragraph in conversing especaily with Americans (as pointed out by Monty Python with the Grim Reaper)
I was kinda taking the piss out philosophy in general with my list of points.

Lacewing wrote: ↑Sat Aug 05, 2023 4:30 pm

attofishpi wrote: ↑Thu Aug 03, 2023 12:07 pm One can lead an atheist to evidence of God, but one cannot make him think.

So you are saying that 'thinking' is what is required to see evidence of God?

To comprehend evidence of God, yes.

Lacewing wrote: ↑Sat Aug 05, 2023 4:30 pmTo the contrary... 'thinking' is what makes many people give up the ideas of theism.

But you haven't. It does take thinking rather deeper than consideration of a universe being spoken into existence, by some old man with a big grey beard called God!

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sun Aug 06, 2023 1:00 am

Lacewing wrote: ↑Sat Aug 05, 2023 4:30 pmTo the contrary... 'thinking' is what makes many people give up the ideas of theism.

But you haven't.

Haven't what? Theism didn't make sense to me, so I gave it up long ago.