Philosophy Now Forum

I think it's misunderstood and taken for granted.

Some of the staff of Charlie Hebdo learned this the hard way (that is: havin' the right to speak your mind doesn't shield you from punches to the nose or bullets to the brain).

Just cuz you can poke a hornets' nest don't mean you should (but, if you're gonna, keep a flame thrower handy).

henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu Nov 14, 2019 2:16 am I think it's misunderstood and taken for granted.

Some of the staff of Charlie Hebdo learned this the hard way (that is: havin' the right to speak your mind doesn't shield you from punches to the nose or bullets to the brain).

Just cuz you can poke a hornets' nest don't mean you should (but, if you're gonna, keep a flame thrower handy).

I agree. The value of free speech is misunderstood. The concept of prostitution is limited in these times to selling sex. The assumption is that it is worth something that is sold cheaply. It is the same with free speech. People prostitute themselves by selling its value for cheap pragmatic or emotional satisfactions. These people want free speech so they can prostitute themselves. Only relative few in these times appreciate the value of quality in free speech necessary to sustain a free society.

Nick_A wrote: ↑Thu Nov 14, 2019 1:26 am Walker

The effortless repetition of simple changes reality, first non-conceptually and then conceptually. Still mind stills thoughts. No thoughts, no mind. Reality therefore changes in a non-conceptual way.

I may be wrong but I read this suggesting the still mind of a dog which just responds to life in a non-conceptual way without thought is the evolutionary goal for Man. Is this true?

You have yet to do in order to know, as suggested, thus speculation about knowing has no substance.

When identity consists only of words, as it does in certain situations, then unsubstantial thoughts amount to the inconsequential of no worth. When thoughts so devolve, endeavour to persevere to humanness beginning with an examination of intent, regarding the purpose of philosophy.

A man who refuses to do in order to understand indeed inspires comparison to a dog that cannot do in order to understand. Although in some endeavours the innocent dog lacks the incarnated mind capacity of doing to understand, the human lack concerning accessibility to the totality of mind stems from hubris and attendant causes of ignorance, rather than the dog’s lesser access capabilities due to incarnation.

Walker wrote: ↑Thu Nov 14, 2019 6:56 am

Nick_A wrote: ↑Thu Nov 14, 2019 1:26 am Walker

The effortless repetition of simple changes reality, first non-conceptually and then conceptually. Still mind stills thoughts. No thoughts, no mind. Reality therefore changes in a non-conceptual way.

I may be wrong but I read this suggesting the still mind of a dog which just responds to life in a non-conceptual way without thought is the evolutionary goal for Man. Is this true?

You have yet to do in order to know, as suggested, thus speculation about knowing has no substance.

When identity consists only of words, as it does in certain situations, then unsubstantial thoughts amount to the inconsequential of no worth. When thoughts so devolve, endeavour to persevere to humanness beginning with an examination of intent, regarding the purpose of philosophy.

A man who refuses to do in order to understand indeed inspires comparison to a dog that cannot do in order to understand. Although in some endeavours the innocent dog lacks the incarnated mind capacity of doing to understand, the human lack concerning accessibility to the totality of mind stems from hubris and attendant causes of ignorance, rather than the dog’s lesser access capabilities due to incarnation.

You have yet to do in order to know, as suggested, thus speculation about knowing has no substance.

But what does one have to do in order to know? You've suggested meditation and stopping habitual thoughts which create the illusion of our being. For me in order to do one must be and in impossible with the ability for conscious attention necessary to acquire presence.

https://excellencereporter.com/2016/01/ ... uman-life/

Jacob Needleman: The dramatic effects of the accelerating advance of technology, for all the material promise they offer the world (along with the dangers, of course) are but the most recent wave in a civilization that, without recognizing what it was doing, has placed the satisfaction of desire above the cultivation of being.

The deep meaning of many rules of conduct and moral principles of the past — so many of which have been abandoned without our understanding their real roots in human nature — involved the cultivation and development of the uniquely human power of attention, its action in the body, heart and mind of man.

To be present, truly present, is to have conscious attention. This capacity is the key to what it means to be human. It is the key to the meaning of human life itself. Without conscious presence there can be no real, enduring love, compassion, will or wisdom, or justice in the world.....................................

The quality of speech for a person who is present is far different than the person seeking self justification or self importance.

Meditation is useful for stilling the mind. But to know and become able to be requires acquiring a state of presence. Conscious attention is essential for presence. IMO the value of conscious attention is the great unknown in these times of rapid technological advances.

Nick_A wrote: ↑Thu Nov 14, 2019 9:31 pmThe quality of speech for a person who is present is far different than the person seeking self justification or self importance.

Go nuts! Invest in a mirror.

uwot wrote: ↑Thu Nov 14, 2019 10:24 pm

Nick_A wrote: ↑Thu Nov 14, 2019 9:31 pmThe quality of speech for a person who is present is far different than the person seeking self justification or self importance.

Go nuts! Invest in a mirror.

uwot provides a good example of the abuse of speech.

Nick_A wrote: ↑Fri Nov 15, 2019 4:23 am

uwot wrote: ↑Thu Nov 14, 2019 10:24 pm

Nick_A wrote: ↑Thu Nov 14, 2019 9:31 pmThe quality of speech for a person who is present is far different than the person seeking self justification or self importance.

Go nuts! Invest in a mirror.

uwot provides a good example of the abuse of speech.

No sir, it's just stuff you don't like to hear. The point being that if there is a good example of a "person seeking self justification or self importance", you're it.

Nick_A wrote: ↑Thu Nov 14, 2019 9:31 pm

Walker wrote: ↑Thu Nov 14, 2019 6:56 am

Nick_A wrote: ↑Thu Nov 14, 2019 1:26 am Walker



I may be wrong but I read this suggesting the still mind of a dog which just responds to life in a non-conceptual way without thought is the evolutionary goal for Man. Is this true?

You have yet to do in order to know, as suggested, thus speculation about knowing has no substance.

When identity consists only of words, as it does in certain situations, then unsubstantial thoughts amount to the inconsequential of no worth. When thoughts so devolve, endeavour to persevere to humanness beginning with an examination of intent, regarding the purpose of philosophy.


A man who refuses to do in order to understand indeed inspires comparison to a dog that cannot do in order to understand. Although in some endeavours the innocent dog lacks the incarnated mind capacity of doing to understand, the human lack concerning accessibility to the totality of mind stems from hubris and attendant causes of ignorance, rather than the dog’s lesser access capabilities due to incarnation.

You have yet to do in order to know, as suggested, thus speculation about knowing has no substance.

But what does one have to do in order to know? You've suggested meditation and stopping habitual thoughts which create the illusion of our being. For me in order to do one must be and in impossible with the ability for conscious attention necessary to acquire presence.

https://excellencereporter.com/2016/01/ ... uman-life/

Jacob Needleman: The dramatic effects of the accelerating advance of technology, for all the material promise they offer the world (along with the dangers, of course) are but the most recent wave in a civilization that, without recognizing what it was doing, has placed the satisfaction of desire above the cultivation of being.

The deep meaning of many rules of conduct and moral principles of the past — so many of which have been abandoned without our understanding their real roots in human nature — involved the cultivation and development of the uniquely human power of attention, its action in the body, heart and mind of man.

To be present, truly present, is to have conscious attention. This capacity is the key to what it means to be human. It is the key to the meaning of human life itself. Without conscious presence there can be no real, enduring love, compassion, will or wisdom, or justice in the world.....................................

The quality of speech for a person who is present is far different than the person seeking self justification or self importance.

Meditation is useful for stilling the mind. But to know and become able to be requires acquiring a state of presence. Conscious attention is essential for presence. IMO the value of conscious attention is the great unknown in these times of rapid technological advances.

To repeat:
You inquire with, how? This requests a method. Every root philosophical inquiry requires a simple seed, as does this particular how inquiry. Quite simply, eliminate all forms of to be, first from communication. Eventually, the concept disappears from consciousness. Only being remains. Do this to know, and to subsequently realize non-delusional implications of the knowing. Non-doing only leads to speculation about the doing. Without the intellectual crutch of to be asserting separation from all the unsaid, thinking and communication disengages from auto-pilot.

*

Because your use of "to be" has become an habitual crutch, eliminating "to be," from written communication requires the mindfulness which you claim but refuse to demonstrate.



What words censorship does not kill become stronger.

Neti neti.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neti_neti

uwot

No sir, it's just stuff you don't like to hear. The point being that if there is a good example of a "person seeking self justification or self importance", you're it.

You offer a classic example for the hatred of ideas concerning the reality of the fallen human condition. This was demonstrated in the classic Secular Intolerance thread. The idea is so offensive that those who speak it must be attacked. It is believed that the only reason for opening to the reality of the human condition is to seek self importance and or self justification. The attraction to impartial truth and the recognition of a Source greater than oneself along with recognition of the corrupt nature of our being is considered preposterous.

The sooner any seeker of truth learns not to take all this huffing and puffing seriously the sooner one is no longer affected by it and can profit through free speech.

Walker

Because your use of "to be" has become an habitual crutch, eliminating "to be," from written communication requires the mindfulness which you claim but refuse to demonstrate.

Was St. Paul oblivious of mindfulness when he wrote in Romans 7 of the struggle to be?

14 We know that the law is spiritual; but I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin. 15 I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. 16 And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good. 17 As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me. 18 For I know that good itself does not dwell in me, that is, in my sinful nature.[c] For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. 19 For I do not do the good I want to do, but the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing. 20 Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it.

21 So I find this law at work: Although I want to do good, evil is right there with me. 22 For in my inner being I delight in God’s law; 23 but I see another law at work in me, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within me. 24 What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body that is subject to death? 25 Thanks be to God, who delivers me through Jesus Christ our Lord!

So then, I myself in my mind am a slave to God’s law, but in my sinful nature[d] a slave to the law of sin.

You write of what not to do and I am writing what is essential to do. At some point they are not different. Can you see why?

Jewish folks censor out the word “God,” to advantage.

“To be” rates the same unspoken awe.

Walker wrote: ↑Fri Nov 15, 2019 5:43 pm Jewish folks censor out the word “God,” to advantage.

“To be” rates the same unspoken awe.

Modern New Age theory asserts "I am God." Modern secularism asserts that We, the Great Collective, the Great Beast, are God. I can fully understand why some avoid this with a passion.

However "to be or not to be" really is the question. To deny the actualized human potential to become themselves, "to be," makes life meaningless and purposeless other than service to society. "To Be" is the conscious purpose for animal man on earth. To say not to mention it and pray for non-existence as the purpose of existence for man doesn't make sense to me. The human condition denies it. But to throw in the towel and surrender to the human condition while continuing to say "this is not I" is just not intellectually satisfying for me. If the purpose of life is non-existence, why are we here to begin with?

Nick_A wrote: ↑Sat Nov 16, 2019 2:10 am

Walker wrote: ↑Fri Nov 15, 2019 5:43 pm Jewish folks censor out the word “God,” to advantage.

“To be” rates the same unspoken awe.

Modern New Age theory asserts "I am God." Modern secularism asserts that We, the Great Collective, the Great Beast, are God. I can fully understand why some avoid this with a passion.

However "to be or not to be" really is the question. To deny the actualized human potential to become themselves, "to be," makes life meaningless and purposeless other than service to society. "To Be" is the conscious purpose for animal man on earth. To say not to mention it and pray for non-existence as the purpose of existence for man doesn't make sense to me. The human condition denies it. But to throw in the towel and surrender to the human condition while continuing to say "this is not I" is just not intellectually satisfying for me. If the purpose of life is non-existence, why are we here to begin with?

You present convincing rationale to explain why censoring the thoughtless, automatic-equivalencies of “to be” by opening up large spaces in the habitual clouds of delusion that obscure the clear, blue sky, also presents a distinct advantage in perceiving reality before delusion.

The verb to be in and of itself, and the functions it assumes when it really should not, of course fills the content. But, content varies. Thus, when comparing the conjectured still mind of a dog with the knowing still mind of a human, one discovers that the characteristic which distinguishes human also limits human. Feel free to inquire how. You did? Well, a dog can make some interesting observations in its own way. When you hear a noise late at night and delusion quickly elbows in with the thought, did I really hear that? … well, if you have arrived where you must ask that kind of question to differentiate house creaks, then a dog’s ears will set you straight. A dog can pinpoint the source of the noise but if you know dogs, sometimes they present an expression that plainly says, “What do you think made that sound?” Then the two of you stand there in silence, you and the dog, reading and mirroring each other’s faces. And then if you think about it, censoring out that verb that shall not be named, you begin to appreciate the genes of adaptability that gave dogs control of sympathetic facial expressions, which mirrors human need for the pack. Then the dog might bark just to mess with you.

Walker

The verb to be in and of itself, and the functions it assumes when it really should not, of course fills the content. But, content varies. Thus, when comparing the conjectured still mind of a dog with the knowing still mind of a human, one discovers that the characteristic which distinguishes human also limits human.

The problem isn't the verb to be. The problem is what imagination taking the place of conscious awareness does to it. The abuse of free speech is good example.

“Imagination and fiction make up more than three-quarters of our real life” ~ Simone Weil

“Imagination is always the fabric of social life and the dynamic of history. The influence of real needs and compulsions, of real interests and materials, is indirect because the crowd is never conscious of it.” ~ Simone Weil

The dog is a creature of reaction without conscious awareness so is incapable of imagination which corrupts it. Where "to be" is the evolutionary goal for man on earth, it easily corrupts into imagination which denies Man its potential. A truly double edged sword.

Nick_A wrote: ↑Fri Nov 15, 2019 4:02 pm You write of what not to do and I am writing what is essential to do. At some point they are not different. Can you see why?

Samsara and nirvana exist as the only two possible aspects of one coin, minted of the same metal. As the precursor to wisdom, equanimity ventures more into the direct, non-dual nature of existence that perceives situations rather than problems, and situations always exist. If too dependent on the false identities of “to be,” if unable to abandon the myriad identities perpetually cited and subconsciously believed by the mind which hears and interprets literally, if unable to abandon “to be” now rather than in the inevitable future, then cultivating all knowledge and perception of equanimity within situations, equanimity now pointed-to as the precursor to wisdom, can’t really hurt more than any other change of life.