Philosophy Now Forum

Arising_uk wrote:

Typist wrote:aPhilosophy concepts are like a street sign that point the way to town. The idea is to actually go on to town, not stand in front of the street sign arguing with it.

You are a hugging me! If there was no sign how the hug would you know where the town was!

maybe its just a label like atheism. hard to talk about it if you are not believing it? try to give cheap wine named "awine - shut up and get drunk!" to taste and discuss in wendsdays wine circle-club meeting. maybe its a wine too? done the same way as "better" wines but tasting..? does it matter if you get drunk fast and cheap? maybe philosophy and aphilosophy are both knowledge? true empirical and true rational knowledge side by side?

The suggestion has been that we stop thinking and just "experience." Trouble is, experience may from time to time provide insight, and is therefore useful but limited, but it may also sometimes mislead -- it may be actually antithetical to "knowledge." The simplest example, I think, is the mirage. These can be quite bizarre, actually. An "inversion" over lake Ontario can make, to Torontonians, Buffalo appear to be hovering in the air off to our West Southwest! This is also known as a Fata Morgana, and I've seen it myself (though for philosophical reasons, I remain convinced that Buffalo remains firmly rooted on the ground).

Mrs. M. is adamant. People are saying her left side is paralyzed, and she knows they are wrong. Several days ago the 76-year-old Californian suffered a stroke. She now sits in a wheelchair while a doctor in a crisp cream-colored suit bends over her, asking questions. She answers them with perfect coherence. Does she know where she is? Yes, she is in a hospital, brought here by her daughter. Does she know what day of the week it is? Of course. It is Tuesday afternoon.

Then the doctor starts in again about her hands. Can she use her right hand? Yes. Her left? Yes, of course. He asks her to use her right hand to point to a student who is taking notes, and she obliges. He asks her to point to the student with her left hand instead. This time she doesn’t move.

Mrs. M., why didn’t you point? asks the doctor. For the first time, she hesitates.

Because I didn’t want to, she answers.

In fact, fibers in the motor cortex on the right side of her brain, which controls movement on her left side, have been irreparably damaged by the stroke, and she will never use her left arm again. But Mrs. M. is not a stubborn old woman refusing to admit a difficult truth. A few minutes later Mrs. M. looks at her left hand, resting inertly in her lap.

Doctor, she asks, whose hand is this?

Whose hand do you think it is?

Well, it certainly isn’t mine!

Then whose is it?

It is my son’s hand, Doctor.

Mrs. M.’s claim would be peculiar enough if her son were in the room, but he is miles away, unaware that in his mother’s mind his hand has become attached to her arm. Mrs. M. is suffering from a condition called anosognosia, which sometimes appears when a stroke has cut off blood being supplied to the brain through the middle cerebral artery. The stroke damages regions in the brain’s right hemisphere that include a territory called the right parietal cortex, a patch of neurons about two-thirds of the way back along the brain. The two parietal cortices (there is one in the left hemisphere also) are known to be involved in directing the brain’s attention to movements, objects, and sensations on the opposite side of the body, as well as in the perception of that entire side of the body in space.

The Brain That Misplaced It's Body

But I digress. If we want to know what aPhilosophy is, then it would seem to make sense to know, first, what Philosophy is. Then, presumably, we could come to some understanding about what the former denies about the latter.

But for most people, the question is too abstract, and philosophers themselves can't agree. Sure, literal translation is "love of wisdom", but what's that? Millenia of people calling themselves philosophers have talked about all kinds of topics in all kinds of ways, but who can say what, if anything, they have in common that makes them all philosophers?

So maybe I’ll try. Perhaps philosophy is just goal and method?

The “goal” is perhaps just a systematic world view. The method to observe, ask questions and test the answers against more observations. Sciences all study particulars, philosophy asks how it all fits together. If you want to learn about bodies, you study biology, and if you are curious about minds, you study psychology. But if you want to learn about how minds are related to bodies, then philosophy of mind is the more appropriate study. But all questions that cross such boundaries must of necessity be quite abstract, which may well be what enables them to cover so many different fields at once.

So perhaps what aPhilosophy really means is a desire not to know about how things fit together, but just to know that they are there, that they exist. This is undoubtedly a useful bit of information if one wishes to use or use, or possibly to avoid, that which is there, but it is hardly penetrating when one wishes to know more.

So perhaps, just perhaps, aPhilosophy is wishing NOT to know more. (There are times, by the way, when that may not be a bad thing. A rainbow, or even better a glory, does not become more beautiful with a study of the science that explains it. In fact, the mystery may add to its allure.)

The suggestion has been that we stop thinking and just "experience."

Let's be precise, and quickly review what I've already said quite a number of times.

Nobody has suggested we stop thinking every minute of the day. Thus, there is still plenty of time for the very many worthwhile and constructive uses of thought.

What has been suggested is that there is more than one way to use the human mind, and some people may find these explorations interesting.

Trouble is, experience may from time to time provide insight, and is therefore useful but limited, but it may also sometimes mislead -- it may be actually antithetical to "knowledge."

Experience can not mislead until we translate it in to thought, and then it is thought that does the misleading. Experience isn't antithetical to knowledge, it's the opposite of knowledge. Experience is real, knowledge is an abstract symbol used to reference the real.

You are alive, real.

A photo of you is not alive, not real, not you, but a dead thing.

The photo is a useful convenience, but it is a highly inaccurate representation of the full reality of you.

That's the relationship knowledge/thought etc have to reality.

By their very nature thoughts and words divide a single unified reality up in to a bunch of little conceptual pieces. This process introduces significant distortions which are at the heart of everything we've been discussing in all our religion related threads.

If we want to know what aPhilosophy is, then it would seem to make sense to know, first, what Philosophy is.

Philosophy is a disciplined study of the content of thought.

aPhilosophy is a disciplined study of the experience outside of thought.

There's no need to make it complicated, unless we wish to make it complicated simply to enjoy complications.

If a reader is serious about learning more about aphilosophy, the best suggestion may be to entirely discard the conceptual part of aphilosophy, and go learn how to meditate.

The non-serious student will wank themselves with words for decades, enjoying the illusion that they are making progress in their study.

The method to observe, ask questions and test the answers against more observations.

In philosophy observation is a means to another end, conclusions.

In aphilosophy observation is valued for itself.

So perhaps what aPhilosophy really means is a desire not to know about how things fit together, but just to know that they are there, that they exist. This is undoubtedly a useful bit of information if one wishes to use or use, or possibly to avoid, that which is there, but it is hardly penetrating when one wishes to know more.

If you had the desire to know more about aphilosophy as you seem to be claiming here, you would stop doing philosophy for a bit, and explore aphilosophy. It's the simplest thing, which I've already told you at least a dozen times.

You'll learn nothing of any value about aphilosophy by doing philosophy.

This is the part that students either find really annoying, or really interesting.

We want to keep talking, talking, talking, talking, talking, talking inside of our own heads. We don't study aphilosophy by doing even more talking. We study it by letting the talking go for awhile.

Letting it go.

Giving it up.

Surrendering the inner yack.

Shutting the fuck up.

It's ruthlessly simple.

And the most common mechanism for defending ourselves against the ruthless simpleness of it, is getting busy trying to make it as complicated as we can. So long as it's complicated, we can keep on yacking to ourselves inside our own heads.

Trying to "figure it out" is nothing more than a clever self delusional excuse for not actually doing it.

Well, it seems Typists and I have two different aphilosophies.

I suppose I do not assert that there really is a thing called aphilsophy, except maybe what Typist likes to attempt to fill in.

I adhere to the idea the 'philosophy shows'. Thus I attempt to show how what most consider philsophy finds little unless it is attached to an activity, such as, a philkosophy of brushing teeth, or, philsophy of religion, or philsophy of geopolitics. Aphilosophy, in the Typist way would be a 'philosophy of living', I guess. I have made it pretty clear, consistent with the 'a' part of aphilsohy, that I promote no method of activity with my aphilsophy.

And that it is rediculous to hold to an 'aphilosophical' approach to philosophy without admtting that it is implicit in the thing it tries to avoid.

There is no mere 'just experiencing' or 'just obvserving' in the same way that there is no essential atheism. As I already tried to show a few pages back.

That is, none without belief.

So Typist, I have to ask: is aphilosophy for one moment of life and living and then philosophy for another moment?
Is one supposed to be better then the other one? How does one let go and hang on at the same time? When and how does one know to begin aphilosophizing and then to start philosophizing?

In speaking of your aphilosophy are you not doing philosophy? When am I supposed to aphilosophize?

So Typist, I have to ask: is aphilosophy for one moment of life and living and then philosophy for another moment?

Yes.

Is one supposed to be better then the other one?

Both together are better than either alone.

As example, like being awake and being asleep. Health arises from a balance between the two, not from the victory of one over the other.

How does one let go and hang on at the same time?

Don't understand the question.

When and how does one know to begin aphilosophizing and then to start philosophizing?

When hungry, eat. When tired, sleep. When thinking becomes a burden, take a break.

In speaking of your aphilosophy are you not doing philosophy?

Yes.

When am I supposed to aphilosophize?

When you want to.

Typist wrote:

So Typist, I have to ask: is aphilosophy for one moment of life and living and then philosophy for another moment?

Yes.
So what if I am attempting to gain a 'wholeness' of moments; is this possible?

Is one supposed to be better then the other one?

Both together are better than either alone. so they are contrary components of a wholeness.

As example, like being awake and being asleep. Health arises from a balance between the two, not from the victory of one over the other.

How does one let go and hang on at the same time?

Don't understand the question.

When and how does one know to begin aphilosophizing and then to start philosophizing?

When hungry, eat. When tired, sleep. When thinking becomes a burden, take a break.
What if I have no inclination for this aphilsophy? Does that not then leave something out of how aphilsophy and philsophy are complementary elements of reality. If I have no inclination to do aphilsophy then I must have other elements that comprise my wholeness reality.
Sure I take a break from thinking, but I wouldnt consider it aphilosophy, but a break. Other than that it would seem you are merely using another term for things we already have, such as, meditation.

In speaking of your aphilosophy are you not doing philosophy?

Yes.

When am I supposed to aphilosophize?

When you want to.

I am not sure what your argument is. You seem to say little more than aphilsophy might be those moments when I am not on this site.
It seems more significant that your argument is that there is no argument. But then the 'practice of aphilsophy' part of it throws the whole thing off.

...and if the practice of aphilsophy is ironic, I feel that what you are asserting, so far as to some 'not-thoughtful' method that is complementary to 'thoughtful' moments, is missing something. If I am trying to come to a 'wholeness' of my experience, then I cannot even say that there are two components, even ironically, because then I am still relying upon some binary truth of the whole thing, and that amounts to saying "thats just the way it is", and I cannot abide by this compromise. It is just a valid as saying, then, that One must believe in Jesus as your savior. Your aphilsophy has just as much merit as any other ideology, and you are merely arguing a belief in the same way that Chaz and others like to argue as 'essential' atheism which has no content that needs to be argued; that it is True regardless of what argument may be made to the contrary.
thus, such positing denies the route by which is becomes valid, and discussion falls flat.
I do not feel i am able to situate my experience to a resultion of nothingness unless I am speaking ironically, and then, as I have indicated - this 'nothingness' needs to see the light of day, and how do we go about 'speaking' about this nothingness.

..and then if this is indeed what you are getting at, the falling flatly of argument, that we are already 'here' (be Here Now - and yes, I have read that book. if you want to discuss Ram Dass experience and the ideology of his expereince elading to his ideology we can perhaps do this), then you have asserted what I have in earlier posts: that aphilsophy has already achieved the object.
But if we then continue to assert the object, as ideology, practice, then we are admitting and evidencing in discourse that thought we say we have achived the object, we have indeed not. And the argument falls flat doubly.
The solution to experience cannot be an assertion of Truth, but as i think you alluded to earlier with J Krishnamuriti, we must speak about it some other way.

In other words: what am I leaving out of the discussion when I assert a Truth?

[quote="evangelicalhumanist"]
But I digress. If we want to know what aPhilosophy is, then it would seem to make sense to know, first, what Philosophy is. Then, presumably, we could come to some understanding about what the former denies about the latter. [quote]

Philsopohy: the situating of knowledge, or, the particular situating of knowledge. Then the question becomes: What is knowledge? What is knowledge to itself? I assert that (Western, Capitalistic, democratized, free) 'Knowledge', that 'thing' of experience, is oriented upon reality in such a way that 'knowledge' becomes reflexive, that thing which informs us what reality actually is, the way it is, as well as the route by which we may know what something is. Such 'knowledge' limits what may actually be true by denying that knowledge can be oriented in any other way.

And, I see philsophy as "showing". thus, is we apply philsophy, in this latter sense, to philosophy, in the former (above) sense - to make more clearer the distinction between the two, i conjure 'aphilsophy' to mean this latter "showing" sense.

So, the question becomes, in example:

A guy plays baseball; he knows all the rules: the whole of existence is the rules of baseball. Someone comes along who knows what 'sports' is, and comes to the baseball game and says: hey you know 'baseball' is just one particular way of situating rules of how to play with a ball. The baseball guy does not understand, and as they speak, continually refers and mistakes "sports" with "baseball' and defers what the 'sports' guy might be saying to 'baseball'. Even when the sports guy takes the baseball guy out and shows him other sports, such as soccer, the baseball guy cannot but gather what might be soccer in to the baseball reality; he cannot understand soccer except with total reference to baseball.

Thus the sports guy sees all the sports under a 'more true' rubric than the guy who understands everything in reference to the true baseball. The sports guy is oriented differently and more comprehesively to 'reality' than the baseball guy.

thus, there are things in the 'real' experience of 'sports' that for the baseball reality is capable of only being partially explained or explained with reference to an unknown effective source. Such baseball explanations, because they are the 'total rules' for reality, hash and rehash the inconsistencies and problems of the 'sports reality' into the 'baseball reality', such that and because the baseball reality is True.

Typist wrote:

So Typist, I have to ask: is aphilosophy for one moment of life and living and then philosophy for another moment?

Yes.

Is one supposed to be better then the other one?

Both together are better than either alone.

As example, like being awake and being asleep. Health arises from a balance between the two, not from the victory of one over the other.

How does one let go and hang on at the same time?

Don't understand the question.

When and how does one know to begin aphilosophizing and then to start philosophizing?

When hungry, eat. When tired, sleep. When thinking becomes a burden, take a break.

In speaking of your aphilosophy are you not doing philosophy?

Yes.

When am I supposed to aphilosophize?

When you want to.

Isn't it amazing! 30,000 pages ago, I posted about my experiences with music and nature, both the thinking and the non-thinking parts. And Typist responded appropriately. In what follows, aPhilosophy doesn't seem to be much of anything, really. Just a rest and a wait for some other inspiration, a quiet moment for the Muse to sneak in.

We had it all figured out, and we agreed. And then -- like good philosophers everywhere, we forgot to stop!

Here is the major part of that exchange, from page 2 of this thread, so very long ago:

evangelicalhumanist wrote:Okay, I begin to glimpse through a glass darkly.

Let's talk about music for a minute. It's a subject I know something about, and one of my very favourite things in the world is Leonard Bernstein doing six lectures at Harvard on the "language of music." It's still available (though expensive) on DVD actually, although it's from decades ago. I play the piano. I've studied music theory.

But one of the things that I love to do is just listen -- especially when it's to a brand new piece, or to something much loved (usually evoking a purely emotional reaction in me). Listen and don't think. Just feel it, wrap my body in it, let the mystery overtake me.

But the thing is, as much as I love to do that, like Bernstein, if I really want more, then I must also now engage the thinking part of my brain, evoke such knowledge as I have (pitifully little compared to Bernstein), and begin the process of understanding how the piece is structured -- it's syntax, it's vocabulary -- and relate it to what I know about myself, to other music, to the situation in which I hear it, and so forth.

So I would suggest that for a short while -- while just listening -- I'm doing what you are talking about.

I do the same when I walk in the woods, but again, not all the time. There is nothing in the world like the sound of the deep boreal forest at first crack of light in the morning, long before there's any noise but the forest and my own breathing. It is indescribable, because I don't describe it, I live it. So again, I believe I'm "exploring beyond thought" as you would have it.

It is these ways, and a few others, that I "medidate," although I know I'm co-opting that word in a way most people wouldn't use it. But it works for me. Other sorts of medidation, however, are not for me. Studying the existence of a pencil for the sake of calming my thinking mind isn't for me, though it may well be for others, in exactly the same sort of way that prayer isn't for me, though it is apparently very useful for others. On the other hand, rich and detailed use of my mental faculties is very much for me. When I haven't got enough problems to resolve (I'm no longer an IT Architect, though I was for a long time), I turn automatically to difficult puzzles, to reading, to learning, to whatever engages my thinking mind because the warm purring of that thing is what I most enjoy -- though others find that sort of thing drudgery. And that's okay, too.

And here is, in part (to the same stopping point) Typist's response:

Typist wrote:EH, great post!

But one of the things that I love to do is just listen -- especially when it's to a brand new piece, or to something much loved (usually evoking a purely emotional reaction in me). Listen and don't think. Just feel it, wrap my body in it, let the mystery overtake me.

Very well said. I am delighted to meet the poet in you.

By the way, I play music as well. Or more accurately, I used to play with great earnestness but modest ability, before I discovered the net. It was through music that I discovered the net.

But the thing is, as much as I love to do that, like Bernstein, if I really want more, then I must also now engage the thinking part of my brain,

Yes, of course. You've invested considerable time and energy in to studying music theory, and thus are able to explore music intellectually, which I agree can be quite satisfying.

The premise of aphilosophy is that just as you have patiently developed your intellectual experience of music, the "just listen" part can be patiently developed as well.

Whether the "just listen" part should be developed is up to you of course, but in order to be in a position to make that decision, it's helpful to know it can be.

So I would suggest that for a short while -- while just listening -- I'm doing what you are talking about.

I would suggest that we are now doing what I'd hoped to do in these threads from the beginning. Each of us doing our own research, and coming together to share it.

I do the same when I walk in the woods, but again, not all the time. There is nothing in the world like the sound of the deep boreal forest at first crack of light in the morning, long before there's any noise but the forest and my own breathing. It is indescribable, because I don't describe it, I live it. So again, I believe I'm "exploring beyond thought" as you would have it.

This is the primary aphilosophy method for me. All of this comes so much easier for me in nature. aPhilosophy and nature have kind of merged in to one subject for me. Others report this as well, but I wouldn't make this in to some kind of rule or requirement.

It is these ways, and a few others, that I "medidate," although I know I'm co-opting that word in a way most people wouldn't use it. But it works for me. Other sorts of medidation, however, are not for me.

As your own comments above indicate, meditation comes in a thousands forms. Whatever works is the best rule. There's much room for mix and match experimentation.

Really, is there anything left to be said on this topic?

I appreciate your guys peotic convergence. Perhaps yous might appreciate Kierkegaard's 'the first love' in his book "either/or" - and for that matter the whole book - where he discusses the aesthetical. Specifically referenced to Mozart 'dongiovani' and another play of his time. He might allow yous a further and interesting treatment on what you (EH) have mentioned so far as a poetry and music.

I think there is more to be said in this aphilsophy but yous have chosen to ignore my input. So perhaps you would consider one of the 'heavy hitters' (Kierkegaard) - in that he has typically been marginalized - and then we could approach from some of his ideas.

In what follows, aPhilosophy doesn't seem to be much of anything, really.

Well, technically, it is indeed the exploration of nothing. That's the whole point.

The exploration of nothing is just like the philosophy experience. One can be very casual about it, very serious about it, or somewhere in between. The exploration could last a few minutes, or be the entire focus of one's life.

As example, there are Buddhist monks who spend all day every day of their life exploring outside of thought, just as there are philosophy professors who spend all day every day of their life exploring the content of thought.

The study of nothing (aphilosophy) is just as big an arena as the study of something (philosophy).

I remind readers again, space is the overwhelmingly dominant characteristic of reality. But when we look to the heavens, we tend to study the stars and planets, which make up the tiniest fraction of what is there.

It's like that psychologically too. We tend to focus on thoughts, but the space that contains the thoughts is worthy of study too, and arguably a bigger thing.

Really, is there anything left to be said on this topic?

Honestly, for you, I'd say probably nothing. You aren't actually interested in the topic, and it seems your time would be better invested in a topic you are interested in.

Why not pat yourself on the back, and congratulate yourself for successfully debunking yet another thing you really don't know much about, and call it day?

Typist wrote:...
The exploration of nothing is just like the philosophy experience. One can be very casual about it, very serious about it, or somewhere in between. The exploration could last a few minutes, or be the entire focus of one's life.

For the umpteenth time, how would you knows this as you've repeatedly said you've not studied any philosophy?

As example, there are Buddhist monks who spend all day every day of their life exploring outside of thought, just as there are philosophy professors who spend all day every day of their life exploring the content of thought.

Again, how would you know this? But your description of the buddhist monk is a classic example of the western gnu 'hippies' view of Buddhism, as they spend a large chunk of their life following a PHILOSOPHY, one that in large involves giving-up goods and chattel and relies upon a belief about others, i.e. they have a begging bowl and the belief that others will give them alms, if not they grow vegetables. Only then do they meditate.

The study of nothing (aphilosophy) is just as big an arena as the study of something (philosophy).

And one that apparently can't say anything about itself, not even the slightest hint of the practices one should follow, so definitely not Buddhism then, but it apparently thinks it has answers to the questions the philosophers pose whilst claiming that it has never actually studied those questions.

What are the issues and questions of philosophy that this 'aphilosophy' thinks it is addressing?

I remind readers again, space is the overwhelmingly dominant characteristic of reality. But when we look to the heavens, we tend to study the stars and planets, which make up the tiniest fraction of what is there.

And I once again remind you that your view of cosmology and astrophysics is based upon a 50's view of science presumably gleaned from the disney channel.

It's like that psychologically too. We tend to focus on thoughts, but the space that contains the thoughts is worthy of study too, and arguably a bigger thing.

You've still not described what a "thought" is to you?

Honestly, for you, I'd say probably nothing. You aren't actually interested in the topic, and it seems your time would be better invested in a topic you are interested in.

But its apparent that some are interested in this topic, will you ever be getting around to talking to them about it rather than using your pop-psychology to avoid the subject?

Why not pat yourself on the back, and congratulate yourself for successfully debunking yet another thing you really don't know much about, and call it day?

Pots, kettles and projection methinks.

Typist wrote:

In what follows, aPhilosophy doesn't seem to be much of anything, really.

Well, technically, it is indeed the exploration of nothing. That's the whole point.

The exploration of nothing is just like the philosophy experience. One can be very casual about it, very serious about it, or somewhere in between. The exploration could last a few minutes, or be the entire focus of one's life.

As example, there are Buddhist monks who spend all day every day of their life exploring outside of thought, just as there are philosophy professors who spend all day every day of their life exploring the content of thought.

The study of nothing (aphilosophy) is just as big an arena as the study of something (philosophy).

I remind readers again, space is the overwhelmingly dominant characteristic of reality. But when we look to the heavens, we tend to study the stars and planets, which make up the tiniest fraction of what is there.

It's like that psychologically too. We tend to focus on thoughts, but the space that contains the thoughts is worthy of study too, and arguably a bigger thing.

Really, is there anything left to be said on this topic?

Honestly, for you, I'd say probably nothing. You aren't actually interested in the topic, and it seems your time would be better invested in a topic you are interested in.

Why not pat yourself on the back, and congratulate yourself for successfully debunking yet another thing you really don't know much about, and call it day?

honestly, I think both of you could do worse for your's plight by reading some Kierkegaard. On one hand, zen type meditation stuff is great but it does little for discussion unless one assumes that the other does not understand it. It is a tiny bit insulting to assume that I or EH or anyone else does not understand what you are saying. It is Because we understand and know of it that we question it so. It is not that we think it is untrue. On the other hand, EH seems limited in the aesthetic he is proposing.

We or should say me, are using the other side to come to a question of what THAT may be. I for one QUESTION my faith; in a sense, that is what I know the Universe 'wants' me to do.

AUK your observations a questions I agree with and are valid and pertinent. I think it shows an immature presumtuousnees for Typist to elude all querries to, basically, "you just don't really understand".