Philosophy Now Forum

Typist wrote:Communism. An explicitly atheist ideology. It started off with truly noble ambitions to liberate the masses from oppression by the rich, and well, we all know how it turned out. ...

We do and apparently its to become the industrial powerhouse of the world. We also know chrisitianity started off like this and look how thats turned out, 'load-up the B52's and lets bomb the bastards'.

I keep goggling this term and can find no such forums?

That's because, as you and I have already discussed, I invented this term here on this forum.

It's of course possible that somebody else has come to the same word I did, and that you can find them out there on the net if you look hard enough.

As far as I know, there is no official enterprise called aphilosophy. However, this general discussion has been underway for thousands of years, under various names.

The book "Be Here Now" by Ram Dass was a pop culture hit back in the 70's. I doubt you'd like it, as I recall it to be almost a comic book. That said, the title is a masterpiece of simplicity and directness.

The speaker/writer Eckhart Tolle has been quite popular in recent years. Promoted by Oprah etc. I'm sure you won't like him, as the culture surrounding him is quite new agey. Even too much for me. If you can get past that though, he's a pretty clear writer who gets to the point and doesn't obscure his ideas in a bunch of mumbo gumbo guru fancy talk.

Both these writers are popular in the west because they take a "let's get to the bottom line" approach that appeals to the western mind.

Jiddu Krishnamurti is a primary influence on Tolle. Krishnamurti was an interesting character (he died in 1980) as he was fully fluent in both western and eastern cultures. He was a truly global citizen, before such a concept became common place.

Krishnamurti's writing is more intellectual in nature, and so would probably appeal more than either of the above writers. Like me, he's very wordy, and wrote dozens of books and gave thousands of talks all around the world for decades.

However, Krishnamurti is of course a native Indian, and he has a more eastern teaching style. He circles round and round the topic, creating an environment where you are supposed to do your own homework. Lazy westerners that want the bottom line dumped in their lap in 5 minutes often find him frustrating.

One thing you'd like about Krishnamurti is that he had plenty of snotty things to say about religion. He has a certain adamant nature that might appeal to readers here.

One bit of trivia that you might like about me, is that I've been formally booted off the Krishnamurti forum, the Tolle forum, and even a forum of my own making, for my relentless attempts to yank the aphilosophy ideology rug out from under readers in those places.

So be warned. As soon as you finally fall in line with this aphilosophy ideology stuff, I'll then begin yanking it all away...

Typist wrote:

I keep goggling this term and can find no such forums?

That's because, as you and I have already discussed, I invented this term here on this forum.

But why did you bother, Typist? The ideas/methods/pathways you point towards have been around for millenia.
I see that the techniques/behaviours/practises have too many inaccurate words attached to them already, (perhaps because it is all about not thinking?)
But even if you could justify fixing them all with a single word, what is the point of coining a word that, by it's very form, must provoke further thought about not thinking?
Why not call it Maisy-Belle?
And what is the point of announcing this new word on a forum that is about thinking?

Typist wrote:One bit of trivia that you might like about me, is that I've been formally booted off . . . .even a forum of my own making, for my relentless attempts to yank the aphilosophy ideology rug out from under readers in those places.

So be warned. As soon as you finally fall in line with this aphilosophy ideology stuff, I'll then begin yanking it all away...

Don't do this sort of thing, Typist.... It makes you sound like a pseudo-Eastern koan merchant. By which I'm sure you do yourself a great disservice.

Typist wrote:That's because, as you and I have already discussed, I invented this term here on this forum.

It's of course possible that somebody else has come to the same word I did, and that you can find them out there on the net if you look hard enough.

As far as I know, there is no official enterprise called aphilosophy. However, this general discussion has been underway for thousands of years, under various names.

Name them.

The book "Be Here Now" by Ram Dass was a pop culture hit back in the 70's. I doubt you'd like it, as I recall it to be almost a comic book. That said, the title is a masterpiece of simplicity and directness.

More of your assumptions about others.

The speaker/writer Eckhart Tolle has been quite popular in recent years. Promoted by Oprah etc. I'm sure you won't like him, as the culture surrounding him is quite new agey. Even too much for me. If you can get past that though, he's a pretty clear writer who gets to the point and doesn't obscure his ideas in a bunch of mumbo gumbo guru fancy talk.

From what I read he is exactly a gnu with all the "mumbo gumbo guru fancy talk" that you display, so I'm not surprised that you may like him.

Both these writers are popular in the west because they take a "let's get to the bottom line" approach that appeals to the western mind.

More that they appeal to the western mind that dislikes actually thinking philosophically.

Jiddu Krishnamurti is a primary influence on Tolle. Krishnamurti was an interesting character (he died in 1980) as he was fully fluent in both western and eastern cultures. He was a truly global citizen, before such a concept became common place.

Krishnamurti's writing is more intellectual in nature, and so would probably appeal more than either of the above writers. Like me, he's very wordy, and wrote dozens of books and gave thousands of talks all around the world for decades.

Show me your books?

However, Krishnamurti is of course a native Indian, and he has a more eastern teaching style. He circles round and round the topic, creating an environment where you are supposed to do your own homework. Lazy westerners that want the bottom line dumped in their lap in 5 minutes often find him frustrating.

That'll not be those who like philosophy then.

One thing you'd like about Krishnamurti is that he had plenty of snotty things to say about religion. He has a certain adamant nature that might appeal to readers here.

Once again you make assumptions about me.

One bit of trivia that you might like about me, is that I've been formally booted off the Krishnamurti forum, the Tolle forum, and even a forum of my own making, for my relentless attempts to yank the aphilosophy ideology rug out from under readers in those places.

Or that even they know you talk nonsense.

So be warned. As soon as you finally fall in line with this aphilosophy ideology stuff, I'll then begin yanking it all away...

Doubt it, as there is nothing to this "aphilosophy ideology" to fall in line with and your lack of a philosophical training would make it very unlikely you could yank anything away.

At best your "aphilosophy ideology" is just a mish-mash of frustrated religion, a splash of 'spirituality', a dash of psychology and a whole chunk of the 'new-agers' ignorance of whats actually been said in western philosophy and some stoner hippie view of eastern religion and philosophy.

Thundril, good questions.

But why did you bother, Typist? The ideas/methods/pathways you point towards have been around for millenia.

Agreed. Please note that I was just replying to a question, that has been asked a couple of times, and will probably be asked again, and again, by the same person.

I'm not on a crusade to invent a new word, it just popped in to my head so I typed it.

I see that the techniques/behaviours/practises have too many inaccurate words attached to them already, (perhaps because it is all about not thinking?)

This subject has been going on for thousands of years, in a variety of times, places and culture. Each group chooses language that works for them. The term "aphilosophy" seemed to be appropriate on a philosophy forum populated largely with "atheists".

There is a solution to inaccurate words about aphilosophy etc. Dump them all. The phrase "be here now" is sufficient for anyone who is sincerely interested in this topic.

But even if you could justify fixing them all with a single word, what is the point of coining a word that, by it's very form, must provoke further thought about not thinking?

An excellent and entirely valid question. I could have just typed "be here now" and left it at that. I do agree this would be a concise expression very appropriate to the nature of aphilosophy.

But of course, nobody here would have engaged that post, because we're not about efficient brevity here are we? We're here to see and be part of a conceptual show of some kind, and so I'm doing my part, and putting on a conceptual show.

That is, I'm attempting to translate the essence of aphilosophy in to the language of the locals. I have a foot in both camps myself, and so this translation process interests me.

And what is the point of announcing this new word on a forum that is about thinking?

As you can see, I too am thinking, about thinking.

Don't do this sort of thing, Typist.... It makes you sound like a pseudo-Eastern koan merchant. By which I'm sure you do yourself a great disservice.

I don't really care what I sound like, but thanks for your concern.

Perhaps you are allergic to certain types of culture, as is your right. If true, that allergy is your situation, your limitation.

As I've said, I've tried to accommodate this allergy by making a good faith effort at a translation in to the local tight ass intellectualizing lingo. Perhaps my efforts are effective, or maybe not, that's up to each reader to decide for themselves.

What I said about my own experience is simply a reporting of the historical fact, however uninteresting that story may be.

More to the point, there is a bigger and more important issue.

It's very common for folks to convert from some other ideology to aphilosophy, and then try to use aphilosophy in the same way they used their previous ideology. That is, they don't get, and don't want to hear that aphilosophy is not just another ideology, but an attempt to explore beyond ideology.

So, for many, at some point aphilosophy itself becomes the next thought burden that must be set aside if they wish to continue exploring the aphilosophy experience.

This is true right now, at this moment, for me.

But remember this my children, the emergence of the full glory of enlightenment in the 4th chakra is due to transcendental nature of essence as a means to become meaning itself, leading to the final chorus of the meaningless hokey pokey conceptual dance which is unfolding forever now in the ever fragrant bloom of utter reality.

His Holiness, Sri Baba Beyondananda



PS: You may kiss my photo if you wish.

Arising_uk wrote:At best your "aphilosophy ideology" is just a mish-mash of frustrated religion, a splash of 'spirituality', a dash of psychology and a whole chunk of the 'new-agers' ignorance of whats actually been said in western philosophy and some stoner hippie view of eastern religion and philosophy.

Ok, cool. Using your penetrating analysis you have revealed aphilosophy ideology to be nothing more than a pathetic scam.

Given your conclusion, it would intellectually honest of you to now discard your supposed interest in aphilosophy ideology entirely, in the same way you discard reported sightings of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

It's over. It's done. You've been there, done that, and the T-shirt wasn't worth buying.

This is good. Really, it is. Progress.

You've cleared out one more pile of conceptual trash that would have had to been discarded sooner or later anyway. You're ahead of the curve by doing it right from the start.

And now your mind is cleared, allowing you to more directly inspect whatever it is that is compelling you to hit the reply button all day long every day.

Typist wrote: Perhaps you are allergic to certain types of culture,

The greenish stuff that grows on cheese rind gives me headache if I don't notice it whilst drunk.

Or maybe it's the drink that gives me the headache. Brewers' yeast is a culture too, so there might be something in that.

How you progressing with the Maisie-Belle, by the way?

Thundril wrote:How you progressing with the Maisie-Belle, by the way?

It's your term, how are you progressing with it?

You've not articulated the premises of Maisie-Belle, so there's nothing for us to debunk, and we're edgy with withdrawal symptoms!

For crying out loud, get on with it, spell it out, put down your marker, start a new thread and stand your ground!!!

Be something, so we can be something else!

Maisie-Belle, (alt spelling Maisy-Belle) is the newly-adjusted name for 'aphilosophy', about which the less said the better.

Thundril wrote:Maisie-Belle, (alt spelling Maisy-Belle) is the newly-adjusted name for 'aphilosophy', about which the less said the better.

It's a good point. Is there a way to share the aphilosophy experience other taking a side trail in to abstract aphilosophy concepts? I don't know, but can share this little story.

When I was in college, at the beginning of my interest in these topics, I went to see a talk by a guru at the university.

This guru was very guru-like, matching all the typical stereo types. The robes, the ashram, the whole bit. And, his approach was more emotional than intellectual, it was a big love thing.

In those days, I was much more like many here, skeptical of all such characters. So clearly I was interested enough to attend, but you should understand I went there in much the same mindset common here, to perform a debunkination.

So the guy comes to the stage, and everybody stops chattering, expecting the guru to start his talk.

But he doesn't talk. He just sits there. For a minute. For five minutes. For 20 minutes. Not saying a word.

Something very interesting happened. A very tangible sense of peace pervaded the air. It was very very real, like an invisible fog that descended upon the room. Needless to say, I was quite surprised, and found myself the victim of a very effective debunkination.

And then the guru began his talk. Which I don't remember a single word of. But I remember whatever it was that happened when he wasn't talking.

Can the aphilosophy experience be communicated and shared without words? I suspect yes.

The problem is that this seems to require an expert. And then once you involve an expert, the student begins looking to something beyond their own experience, and the usual organization games begin.

I hate football. For a teenage lad in 1960's Liverpool, this was a social handicap.
I went with some workmates to Anfield once. Liverpool beat some other team by some amount. Can't remember the details. What I do remember though, was this: . .
When tens of thousands of voices started singing 'Walk On' all around me, I started to cry.
This, in a nutshell, is the 'religious' experience.
It's the material conditions that trigger the response. Thousands of people, all standing, facing in the same direction, singing something loaded with sentimental words and an anthemic tune, works every time. It has nothing to do with the show, or the particular faith being proclaimed. You feel you are part of something immense.
Every major rock band of the last two or three decades has learned to exploit this stadium effect.
You could have experienced the same thing at Nuremberg, when the SS started singing the Horst Wessel Lied.

But your guru used silence, prolonged, to take the audience through unease, to relaxation, to joining in with, and internalizing, the silence. Same trick, different schtick.
An experience that subverted that, in a theatre festival in Rotterdam some years ago:
There were rows of marquees, back to back, in the market square. (It's a massive square, right in the middle of the town.)
We went into one marquee, and after sitting for a rather long time, the curtain went up. On the other side of the stage we saw rows of people sitting in seats. It slowly dawned on us that they were another audience, in the marquee that backed onto the one we were in. For a long time these two audiences stared across the empty stage at each other, waiting for something to happen. when nothing continued to happen for several minutes, Peoplestarted to slowly realise what was going on. Gradually we all started to laugh.
A remarkable and unforgettable debunking exercise.

Thundril wrote:I hate football. For a teenage lad in 1960's Liverpool, this was a social handicap.
I went with some workmates to Anfield once. Liverpool beat some other team by some amount. Can't remember the details. What I do remember though, was this: . .
When tens of thousands of voices started singing 'Walk On' all around me, I started to cry.
This, in a nutshell, is the 'religious' experience.
It's the material conditions that trigger the response. Thousands of people, all standing, facing in the same direction, singing something loaded with sentimental words and an anthemic tune, works every time. It has nothing to do with the show, or the particular faith being proclaimed. You feel you are part of something immense.
Every major rock band of the last two or three decades has learned to exploit this stadium effect.
You could have experienced the same thing at Nuremberg, when the SS started singing the Horst Wessel Lied.

But your guru used silence, prolonged, to take the audience through unease, to relaxation, to joining in with, and internalizing, the silence. Same trick, different schtick.
An experience that subverted that, in a theatre festival in Rotterdam some years ago:
There were rows of marquees, back to back, in the market square. (It's a massive square, right in the middle of the town.)
We went into one marquee, and after sitting for a rather long time, the curtain went up. On the other side of the stage we saw rows of people sitting in seats. It slowly dawned on us that they were another audience, in the marquee that backed onto the one we were in. For a long time these two audiences stared across the empty stage at each other, waiting for something to happen. when nothing continued to happen for several minutes, Peoplestarted to slowly realise what was going on. Gradually we all started to laugh.
A remarkable and unforgettable debunking exercise.

Exactly the same trick was used to massive effect at Nuremberg in the lead up to WW2 and as a means to keep the German people on side throughout the war.
It is easy to get sucked in.

I hate football. For a teenage lad in 1960's Liverpool, this was a social handicap.

Oh dear, I imagine so.

When tens of thousands of voices started singing 'Walk On' all around me, I started to cry. This, in a nutshell, is the 'religious' experience. It's the material conditions that trigger the response.

It's always interesting to me when folks who don't believe in religion claim to know what the religious experience is.

Do you not see the irony? This is just what atheists claim theists do, come to conclusions regarding things they couldn't possibly know.

But your guru used silence, prolonged, to take the audience through unease, to relaxation, to joining in with, and internalizing, the silence. Same trick, different schtick.

Although I don't claim to know what the "trick' was, I can go along with your description. Point was, he did just what you were suggesting, the less said the better.

I am actually agreeing with you, this "less said the better" approach was more effective than the "more said the better" approach I'm using here.

How to deploy the "less said the better" approach on an Internet forum?

You know who kinda has the knack for it? Mike Strand. He says stuff on this forum, but most of the time he's saying your own stuff back to you, which is a form of "less said the better".

He goes really easy on making his own points. Thus, there's little to push back against, thus we're less likely to get all wound up in making our own points.

If I was a good aphilosophy teacher, I would simply agree with everything all of you are saying. Uh huh, like that is going to happen. I'm deep in to fantasy now.

Here's a little inside tip. The people who study aphilosophy, are usually the people who need to study aphilosophy.

chaz wyman wrote:Exactly the same trick was used to massive effect at Nuremberg in the lead up to WW2 and as a means to keep the German people on side throughout the war.
It is easy to get sucked in.

Yes, good point, you're right Chaz, entirely correct. I agree completely.

(Just practicing....)

Typist wrote: It's always interesting to me when folks who don't believe in religion claim to know what the religious experience is.
Do you not see the irony? This is just what atheists claim theists do, come to conclusions regarding things they couldn't possibly know.

It's always interesting to me when people who should be smart enough to know better assume that a person who is atheist has always been atheist.
You have come to a conclusion regarding things you couldn't possibly know about. Do you not see the irony?