Philosophy Now Forum

Dalek Prime to DAM wrote: ↑Sun Aug 12, 2018 12:50 pmAs for poking her stick around, that's what philosophers do; stir things up to see what really lurks in the muck. Scepticism is a time honored tradition.

That's what I like about philosophy: Questioning what we think we know. Not so extremely that we can't function or can't make sense of anything anymore (of course), but enough questioning to ensure that we're not getting stuck, to our detriment.

So when someone comes along claiming to know -- and especially if they're being extreme about it (which is surprisingly more common than I ever imagined, prior to coming online) -- it's compelling to challenge that and see their response. It's very rare for people who claim they "know" to honestly explore the inconsistencies of what they're saying/doing, when it is pointed out to them. It seems that their "knowing" is their identity, and they must protect that even if it requires deception and denial.

I think... if "knowing" was NOT so tied to a person's identity, that person would be better able to freely explore, question, and accept much more. They would not fight (or resist) to the death over what they think they know. They would not hide or shut down or spin out when challenged. I suspect the ego fears for its survival -- yet, rigidity of thought and patterns are already like a death and certain madness. So it's like being imprisoned and tormented by one's own ego as one's master, with a mandate to: Own/create the highest "knowing", and reign supreme over others (like an untouchable god).

I think that's the primary "beastie" that could mess with any of us... and the primary "hell" we might end up creating for ourselves as a result.

There are always a handful of people on this forum setting up a platform and professing what they "know" -- and there are many variations, conflicts, and inconsistencies between those platforms, as well as within each. Still, they remain resolute... unquestioning. Considering that, I feel drawn to ask: What's it really about? Ignoring the set design, script, and costumes: What is behind their curtain? What substance is there that is not focused on serving their own rightness and highness?

Dalek Prime wrote: ↑Sun Aug 12, 2018 12:50 pm

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Sun Aug 12, 2018 8:41 am

Greta wrote: ↑Sun Aug 12, 2018 1:33 am
There appears to be no point in talking to these loonies with their endless drivel and whining.

Dalek, escape while you can!

Greta couldn't escape out of a paper bag. She talks about how loony all this is, yet can't remove herself from it for a single moment, it draws her in every time, because she loves nothing more than whinning about endless drivel. She does this because she enjoys stirring the cauldren, otherwise she'd stop reading these endless drivel fueled posts and ignore them once and for all, but she can't do it, she's scared to miss out on all the gossip. Basically, shes a shit stirrer, she likes poking her stick around and getting off on the effects.

Time and time again she's said no point talking to these loonies, yet here she is again... always lurking around the filth.

No offence Greta...but you don't practice what you preach to yourself do you...I'm sure your a really lovely person. All people are generally jolly nice except when they get behind their silly mask, or behind computer screens.

Funny thing is, you and Nick think you're exceptions to the rule of masks, computer screens or magical crystal balls. Or even balls of thefluffy, unshaven variety.

As for poking her stick around, that's what philosophers do; stir things up to see what really lurks in the muck. Scepticism is a time honored tradition.

I am very much the same off screen. I do not appear to be put on this Earth to tell people how right they are when they make wild and woolly claims off the tops of their heads - neither on screen or in meatspace.

It's an irony that I am interested in many of the topics Nick raises, having always been interested in mysticism, but I am irritated by the constant misinformation, misrepresentations and aggressively false claims, not to mention the small fact that he threw an enormous amount of crap at me on this forum before I finally cracked and started fighting back and thus falling, as observed, into this toxic vortex and, also ironically, giving him forum oxygen. (Stupid stupid stupid!).

I feel strongly that smart people with good ideas are being deterred from these forums due to the craziness, so I am definitely the enemy of anyone making unsubstantiated claims of certainty on philosophy forums or engaging in aggressive polemic repetition. There's Twitter, Facebook and other social media that caters for polemic and fighting. Ideally on these forums we'd discuss ideas rather than damn to hell those who think differently or make baseless or repetitive claims.

Greta wrote: ↑Sun Aug 12, 2018 11:39 pm Ideally on these forums we'd discuss ideas rather than damn to hell those who think differently or make baseless or repetitive claims.

Ideally yes but we seldom do even if the likes of Nick and his ilk were completely excluded from every philosophy forum. If his type weren't around not much would change except there would be far fewer posts all around. Let's face it! It's his kind who keeps the wheels greased on philosophy forums because, to repeat, many ideas worthy of discussion are deprived of the time spent on the output of a defective mind.

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Sun Aug 12, 2018 5:02 pm

Nick_A wrote: ↑Sat Aug 11, 2018 9:45 pm
Secular progressive education doesn't recognize the higher and lower parts of the collective human soul or essence so has no idea how to educate the charioteer resulting in the gradual loss of our connection to higher consciousness.

Secular progressive education doesn't recognize the higher and lower parts - maybe so, but we ourselves do surely?
They don't teach nonduality in schools do they?


I believe You're the higher self it self and that it's not greater than you. That's why no secular education could penetrate me. I was one of those to make up my own mind in school about what was worthy of my attention, or what really mattered at all, or what was real, or unreal, truth or false, fake or otherwise. Needless to say, I couldn't wait to get out of that institution. I constantly felt like I needed to breathe, and to be allowed to think my own thoughts and work things out for myself.

Life and experience is your only real teacher. But if you want to be a somebody in the world, then that's okay, go for it, study how to become a doctor or a solicitor, or what ever floats your boat, we makes our choices and pays our prices, each to their own.

Is there any reason why the scientific facts of the world should be in opposition to objective values which are a part of our living universe? I think you would agree with me that there is no reason. If that is the case, a human education would comprise of learning the basic facts of the world and placing them within a human perspective based on feeling objective values.

My guess is that you had trouble with the attitudes towards objective values of the secular mind. You naturally rebelled against these spirit killing attitudes.

Perhaps we could discuss this in PMs. I am curious as to the primary source of your beliefs and what your goal is as it pertains to philosophy. If your goal is to make money then as you imply, one rarely does. Many like to feel important and a philosophy degree offers prestige There is a minority with the need for objective meaning Socrates referred to together with the love of wisdom which Socrates defined as philosophy.

Of course this is rare but we all have a goal which philosophy can be a part of either in a pure or distorted form. If the idea appeals to you email me. If not, that is OK too,

Dubious wrote: ↑Mon Aug 13, 2018 2:47 am

Greta wrote: ↑Sun Aug 12, 2018 11:39 pm Ideally on these forums we'd discuss ideas rather than damn to hell those who think differently or make baseless or repetitive claims.

Ideally yes but we seldom do even if the likes of Nick and his ilk were completely excluded from every philosophy forum. If his type weren't around not much would change except there would be far fewer posts all around. Let's face it! It's his kind who keeps the wheels greased on philosophy forums because, to repeat, many ideas worthy of discussion are deprived of the time spent on the output of a defective mind.

Yes, I guess that's not going to get people looking at ads.

I just like the idea of being able to move forward with ideas instead of always being pulled back into the same old circular shit which can be summarised in its multifarious forms as "Do we disappear after death or does something of us live on?".

So much of the circular stuff on these forums centres on that question, often under the guise of "Is God real or not?" or "Is morality objectivity or subjective?" or "Does free will exist?" or "How did the universe start?" and most of the circular arguments ultimately have at heart simply people with different ways of coping with the inevitable and disturbing prospect of death.

It is amazing how the secular mind is so free to attack yet imagines attacks by the universal mind which doesn’t exist. For example DP wrote

And I just saw where this charioteer stuff was linked to; the art of manliness! I doubt I'm going to learn anything of interest from some men's whining club.

But the only ones doing the whining are the Greta types. It is natural for men of character to ask what it means to be a man; what is manliness? Yet since the secular mind has degraded to such an extent that it considers men and women as the same. From this perspective the questions raised and Plato’s ideas as they relate to the question are considered whining.

Greta wrote

I feel strongly that smart people with good ideas are being deterred from these forums due to the craziness, so I am definitely the enemy of anyone making unsubstantiated claims of certainty on philosophy forums or engaging in aggressive polemic repetition. There's Twitter, Facebook and other social media that caters for polemic and fighting. Ideally on these forums we'd discuss ideas rather than damn to hell those who think differently or make baseless or repetitive claims.

Who is acting the polemic? Who is hating the great ideas of the past. It is Greta.

She is the enemy of anyone making unsubstantiated claims of certainty on philosophy forums. This means she hates Plato and Plotinus. The ONE of Plotinus and the Good of Plato must be hated and eliminated. They are unsubstantiated. She is living by the closed mind of the secularist rather than by the open mind of the philosopher. The goal of the secular mind is the elimination of deductive or top down reason. In practice it is spirit killing and leads to the destruction of the objective value of philosophy

http://www.faculty.umb.edu/michael_lafa ... s-8-09.htm

Socratic reasoning is what philosophers call "inductive" reasoning. (Already Aristotle, Plato's pupil, characterized Socratic reasoning as "inductive" see his Metaphysics 13.4, 1078B 22-23). Inductive reasoning is making generalizations from observations in specific concrete cases. Isaac Newton was using inductive reasoning when he derived the general law of gravity from many specific concrete observations about falling apples, the movement of the planets, and so on.

Inductive reasoning is contrasted with deductive reasoning, deducing particular conclusions from some general principle. Deductive reasoning assumes we can be certain about general abstract principles. Euclidean geometry is built on deductive reasoning, since it starts from general abstract axioms assumed to be self-evident, such as "The shortest distance between two points is a straight line." Utilitarian moral philosophy is also based on deductive reasoning. It is all based on a single general principle: "Morally good actions are actions that will produce the greatest good for the greatest number of people." It uses this principle as a basis for deciding what is good or not good to do in particular circumstances.

Inductive Socratic reasoning assumes instead that we can be more certain about our perceptions of what is admirable and not admirable in clear concrete cases than we can ever be about general principles. As in all inductive reasoning, when some general principle conflicts with a specific concrete observation (a "counterexample"), this is assumed to show a weakness in the general principle, which needs revising in the light of the concrete perception. (Click here for a more extended description of the difference between inductive Socratic reasoning and deductive utilitarian reasoning.)

Philosophy as the love of wisdom for Socrates begins with inductive reason. He verified for himself that he and others knew nothing. He was called wise because he admitted it and was drawn to the realm of knowledge which transcended the domain of diverse opinions. .The hypothesis is made through inductive reason that objective knowledge must have a source. Once the necessity of the source is accepted then deductive reason is used to explain creation through the lawful devolution of spirit in matter.

Is it any wonder why the Greta types will seek to deny deductive reason beginning with a conscious source? It questions the supremacy of the dualistic secular world even though it is far more logical to begin with top down deduction as it relates to the Good and the manifestation of creation, The idea of creation as some sort of blind accident is obviously idiotic. Yet the Greta types call it philosophy and in her own words she is the enemy of unsubstantiated claims. What could be more idiotic and unsubstantiated then the idea that the universe and man within it is blind accident?

Yes, as I’ve previously written, secularism is dedicted to the destruction of the essence of religion and the intent of philosophy in order to impose its own beliefs in secular supremacy and its support of dualism. It has become closed to the potential for opening to the third dimension of thought which would allow those interested to experience the objective value of the essence of religion and the objective intent of philosophy.

So the one who whines about scapegoating creates this enormous tract of incoherent text devoted to scapegoating "Greta types".

As I say, it's people like this poster who are turning good people off these forums with their overheated and repetitive polemic, utterly blinkered bias and a shockingly loose approach to the truth.

It's very easy: If a claim is unsubstantiated then don't pretend that it is The Truth and then treat those who disagree like garbage.

Nick_A wrote: ↑Mon Aug 13, 2018 3:55 am
Is there any reason why the scientific facts of the world should be in opposition to objective values which are a part of our living universe? I think you would agree with me that there is no reason. If that is the case, a human education would comprise of learning the basic facts of the world and placing them within a human perspective based on feeling objective values.

I do agree with you Nick, I've also resonated with the ideas you discuss. I understand what you are tapping into here.

Nick_A wrote: ↑Mon Aug 13, 2018 3:55 amMy guess is that you had trouble with the attitudes towards objective values of the secular mind. You naturally rebelled against these spirit killing attitudes.

Yes, I had trouble .. I was labeled a misfit. Nothing felt natural to me. Little did I realise I was being called to unite with source energy, it was my only real calling in this particular life experience. I feel utterly blessed because I had discovered my purpose for being here, grace alone visited me, and whispered that I should teach the real meaning of love, and that love is unconditional, fearless, and free...but also a very fiesty warrior.

Nick_A wrote: ↑Mon Aug 13, 2018 3:55 amPerhaps we could discuss this in PMs. I am curious as to the primary source of your beliefs and what your goal is as it pertains to philosophy. If your goal is to make money then as you imply, one rarely does. Many like to feel important and a philosophy degree offers prestige There is a minority with the need for objective meaning Socrates referred to together with the love of wisdom which Socrates defined as philosophy.

I have no interest in making money, money is not what drives me...I see people selling their very souls for money, trading that part of them that is worth all the money in the universe for a mere fleeting experience that has no guarantee of happiness or mental stabilty.
I could write books and make money very easily if I wanted to to, but it's not for me,this time around, I've chosen to rest in the beloved and to just be available for others if needed, by that I mean being a loving supporting shoulder for anyone who is suffering mental affliction or despair.

Nick_A wrote: ↑Mon Aug 13, 2018 3:55 amOf course this is rare but we all have a goal which philosophy can be a part of either in a pure or distorted form. If the idea appeals to you email me. If not, that is OK too,

I don't know Nick, but will do if the desire to do so arises. I know we'd have a lot in common anyway, no worries about that.

Thanks for the invitation though. ..when we are in discussion generally on these forum threads, I will open up more and more to you about stuff, and we can perhaps do it that way as and when ideas arise naturally rather than force them out of the archives ..eh?

I guess in answer to what my primary source of my beliefs are...was just staring me in the face from day one..and that was to find out who the heck am I ?

And I do believe that is what this journey through life is/was all about...remembering the answer.

.

.

Greta wrote: ↑Mon Aug 13, 2018 4:12 amcoping with the inevitable and disturbing prospect of death.

Listen carefully...


There is nothing disturbing about the prospect of death.

The only disturbing aspect here is the realisation that there is no person inside a body that can die. The idea that there is nobody in a body is very disturbing to those who believe there is. That realisation is rejected by the one who believes itself a separate living entity, that's the only disturbing issue here, for how can I be a nobody ....the mind screams in shock horror.

Death is life, life is death, can't have one without the other. And since life has no known beginnning nor end, life and death are illusions of knowledge a fiction overlayed upon the real. And while fictions(dreams) come and go, that which is real does not, else fictions(dreams) wouldn't even be able to arise.

What would be most disturbing, being alive forever, and never ever having a break from life as and through the doorway of death(sleep/pure latent awareness)...or, having a break now and again like you do at the end of the day when you welcome sleep every night, and never fear it, because you know you'll will wake up every morning, but you don't really know that you will wake up, you take waking up for granted.

So imagine working and living for the rest of your life without ever going to bed to have a welcome sleep, that would surely be more disturbing.

We only fear what we do not know, and just as we know we will wake up after a night time sleep, same applies to when the spirit leaves the body vehicle, it's not gone anywhere because there is only here, it's only asleep.

Here there is only consciousness awareness. The body is the vehicle of that timeless energy spirit.

Awareness is the unconscious, whereas consciousness is the unconscious conscious...two sides of the same coin in life and death. It's so beautiful and far from disturbing... (death aka sleep) is not to be feared, it's the complimentary opposite of life, and life would not be possible without it's counterpart.

The disturbed mind is fearful, and that is what some of us here on this froum are here to dispel .. there really is nothing disturbing here, life in it's wisdom is unconditional love and no thing was ever harmed in the making of this movie called life. We do not complain when we are living a pleasant life, but complain when it's not, but the two opposites like life and death have to be part and parcel of the whole dream experience. (awake or asleep)...it's all the same one love action dreaming difference where there is none.

The above message is subject to my belief only...in this experience we call life it is each dream characters prerogative to believe in what the heck they want, for there is here only beliefs, no belief, no movie of I

If you fear death, then you will fear life...and this whole experience will be tense, which is not the natural state of it.

Dare to dream and happy awakenings to all.

And remember, there are always going to people on this forum that will think about the nature of reality in different ways than what is normally acceptable according to mainstream norm, but that doesn't mean those thinkers should be excluded, no one has the authority to say how we should be able to think and what we are to think about...You should be welcoming everyone in here, and not rejecting any one, afterall this is about moving forward with new or old ideas...so we can give ourselves permission to be ourselves unconditionally without fear of what other people are going to think ...to me, that is moving forward toward a better living experience.

.

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Mon Aug 13, 2018 11:33 am

Greta wrote: ↑Mon Aug 13, 2018 4:12 amcoping with the inevitable and disturbing prospect of death.

Listen carefully...


There is nothing disturbing about the prospect of death.

Listen carefully...

Try telling the other seven billion people that. People usually find death disturbing. Do you deny that too?

It's amusing to see people waxing philosophical about death when they have not faced or even seriously considered its reality.

Death is nothing! Pah! I laugh in the face of death! Death holds no fear for me! I can see the bigger picture beyond death ... bullshit, bullshit, bullshit ... then the fight-or-flight response kicks in ...

Nor do I need greeting card life coaching from someone who appears to me to be floundering in life.

Greta wrote: ↑Mon Aug 13, 2018 4:12 am
So much of the circular stuff on these forums centres on that question.

Life is a circle and as a circle goes on and on, life too goes on and on eternally without a beginning and without an end. Thoughts in the mind go on and on as well like a circle and a beginning and end point of thought can never be determined.

The scientific knowledge of the fact that every atom of every living or non-living entity is light gives a clue to understand that life is a circle.
The world is round like a circle and a circle is round as well. This signifies that life within the circle would be a circle as well.

Therefore, a beginning and an end of anything in life is illusory and is neither actual nor distinct. Therefore, I rightly proclaim that life is beginningless and endless.

Light has no beginning, which implies that life has no end as well. It is obvious that a circle has no beginning nor an end.



Do continue...




.

Greta wrote: ↑Sun Aug 12, 2018 11:39 pm

Dalek Prime wrote: ↑Sun Aug 12, 2018 12:50 pm

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Sun Aug 12, 2018 8:41 am

Greta couldn't escape out of a paper bag. She talks about how loony all this is, yet can't remove herself from it for a single moment, it draws her in every time, because she loves nothing more than whinning about endless drivel. She does this because she enjoys stirring the cauldren, otherwise she'd stop reading these endless drivel fueled posts and ignore them once and for all, but she can't do it, she's scared to miss out on all the gossip. Basically, shes a shit stirrer, she likes poking her stick around and getting off on the effects.

Time and time again she's said no point talking to these loonies, yet here she is again... always lurking around the filth.

No offence Greta...but you don't practice what you preach to yourself do you...I'm sure your a really lovely person. All people are generally jolly nice except when they get behind their silly mask, or behind computer screens.

Funny thing is, you and Nick think you're exceptions to the rule of masks, computer screens or magical crystal balls. Or even balls of thefluffy, unshaven variety.

As for poking her stick around, that's what philosophers do; stir things up to see what really lurks in the muck. Scepticism is a time honored tradition.

I am very much the same off screen. I do not appear to be put on this Earth to tell people how right they are when they make wild and woolly claims off the tops of their heads - neither on screen or in meatspace.

It's an irony that I am interested in many of the topics Nick raises, having always been interested in mysticism, but I am irritated by the constant misinformation, misrepresentations and aggressively false claims, not to mention the small fact that he threw an enormous amount of crap at me on this forum before I finally cracked and started fighting back and thus falling, as observed, into this toxic vortex and, also ironically, giving him forum oxygen. (Stupid stupid stupid!).

I feel strongly that smart people with good ideas are being deterred from these forums due to the craziness, so I am definitely the enemy of anyone making unsubstantiated claims of certainty on philosophy forums or engaging in aggressive polemic repetition. There's Twitter, Facebook and other social media that caters for polemic and fighting. Ideally on these forums we'd discuss ideas rather than damn to hell those who think differently or make baseless or repetitive claims.

There are also cults, and advertising forums lol. Is Bob still around? He was oddly more fun to talk to.

Greta wrote: ↑Mon Aug 13, 2018 12:10 pm
Try telling the other seven billion people that. People usually find death disturbing. Do you deny that too?

It's amusing to see people waxing philosophical about death when they have not faced or even seriously considered its reality.

Death is nothing! Pah! I laugh in the face of death! Death holds no fear for me! I can see the bigger picture beyond death ... bullshit, bullshit, bullshit ... then the fight-or-flight response kicks in ...

Nor do I need greeting card life coaching from someone who appears to me to be floundering in life.

Listen, if according to your belief there is no creator God, and the human being is just nothing more than a more sophisticated blob of algae...if there is no purpose to life other than being a sophisticated blob of algae and that all life forms were just a random cosmic accident, and there was no intelligent designer or creator that ever existed, then nothing has ever been created including you has it?

So why are you getting all hysterical about death, what the heck do you think it is that has actually died here?
There is no creator so nothing has been created has it? so what is so disturbing about blubbering over what has never been created?





.

The fact that there is something does not require an aware creator. That you think this is necessary precondition is your mental block, DAM.

Greta wrote: ↑Mon Aug 13, 2018 6:00 am So the one who whines about scapegoating creates this enormous tract of incoherent text devoted to scapegoating "Greta types".

As I say, it's people like this poster who are turning good people off these forums with their overheated and repetitive polemic, utterly blinkered bias and a shockingly loose approach to the truth.

It's very easy: If a claim is unsubstantiated then don't pretend that it is The Truth and then treat those who disagree like garbage.

Funny! That is the same thing Socrates' accusers said about him. He was disturbing the peace and corrupting the youth of Athens. Since I quote Plato it is natural that the same should be said about me. The GOOD is unubstantiated so should not be discussed. The only substantated truth worthy of philosophy for the Greta mind is the necessity to attack Donald Trump. Those supporting the GOOD as described by Plato is meaningless since it is unsubstantiated. What could be worse than disturbing the good indoctrinated people and the snowfliakes than arousing contemplation of the truths beyond the experience of the sensesand the ability to "remember?"