Philosophy Now Forum

I'd like to propose one of the benefits derived from Enlightenment. It is as though your mind is given a new 'filing system'; like the Dewey Decimal filing System for libraries being upgraded to the next more advanced design. This 'new' system allows for controlled censoring, or filtered use of your subjective knowledge, something that normally lacks credibility with anyone else! Hence, the problem of how can we 'evidence' it to someone else?

Enlightenment does away with this by allowing a reasoned and scrutinized consideration of answers to questions. Every 'answer' is now overlaid with a dependable filter, meaning that which is real, objective! If an answer does not conform to what is known of reality, it is wrong! In which case, it will be junked under opinions to use for idiotic circular arguments. But, if it does conform to 'reality', your now subjective view can be given its due with full confidence because of its harmonious fit with both what you 'think', and your objective view of reality. What remains is a concept having no voids due to the inclusion of subjective ideas, with your observations of the objective reality surrounding you. What is different in this model, is that it provides a means of negating ego's tarnishing influence on both questions and answers asked.

The mechanics of it, as I see it is; a means of asking the multitude of questions normally demanded by a life of philosophy, with each being the 'next question' that 'should' be asked. I liken it to the 'steps' we take thru through grades in school, each progressive step providing the knowledge to understand what the past grade's lessons taught, or in my point, the past 'answers'! This allows for an efficiency of thought impossible for Egos to duplicate. With the ego being very careless about how it mixes facts and fancies together, its arguing points are only suited for battle in inane discussions.

Ego has limitations on what it can make you think. It does not have the capacity that you, the "I" that wants answers, have for 'framing' questions where the answer is to be derived from 'outside' of your present knowledge; meaning new knowledge, something deduced, something learned! The best an ego can devise lacks benefit since it has to be formed out of that which you already know! The ego is not the one that wants to learn, you are!

Obtaining the discipline necessary to follow a path of sequentially ordered questions, does not come from some miracle strength, or dedication, chanting, or prayer, it is simply appetite! If your appetite for knowledge is truly fueled with learning, than the ego's proffered wisdom, since it cannot offer something New, no longer satisfies your mind's palate. You are merely making a choice that satisfies your hunger for understanding, no longer wastefully paying attention and rehashing ego's remembrances of knowledge gleaned from the past. By eliminating the ego's influence, trash will never be mixed in with your philosophically developed mental accomplishments. Ego is left to languish and babble to itself, and while you may still hear what it suggests, it's but a very small voice like a mouse squeaking in a wall, that while we may be unable to eliminate it, at least we are not feeding it.

To get answers to your most profound questions, all you have to do is ask 'profound questions! Of course, a person of pretence, will only get answers provided for themselves by themselves; a plentiful supply of the ego's pap to argue with the masses.

So think I! Did I make this clear enough? Do you 'see' the implied improvement over the norm?
jack

.






Think you missed your main point based upon your own thesis presented here.


Also, what is your full name? Where can we find you on a major social site & where do you live?






.

Sad thing most of America is not Enlightened. That is why we are going to inevitably get Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump, and World War 3.

I pray to stand up and Stand Up and vote for Jill Stein.

Mortalsfool wrote: So think I! Did I make this clear enough?
jack

more than you think

TSBU wrote:

Mortalsfool wrote: So think I! Did I make this clear enough?
jack

more than you think

How so, I ask!
jack

Pure nonsense and babble, enlightenment is an outdated term, and only really covers having knowledge, intellect and rationale, nothing else. A doctor is enlighten in the ways of medical stuff, but can't build a rocket, a rocket engineer may not be able to do any medical stuff, but both are enlightened, but ignorant in each other fields of expertise.

HexHammer wrote:Pure nonsense and babble.

For once we agree.

At first I was even more confused because he had capitalized "Enlightenment." I thought he was referring to the so-called "Age of Enlightenment," the European intellectual movement of the 18th century.

If you're talking about the Zen sense of enlightenment, the convention is to not capitalize it.

HexHammer wrote:Pure nonsense and babble, enlightenment is an outdated term, and only really covers having knowledge, intellect and rationale, nothing else. A doctor is enlighten in the ways of medical stuff, but can't build a rocket, a rocket engineer may not be able to do any medical stuff, but both are enlightened, but ignorant in each other fields of expertise.

I find it so difficult to be nice to some of you guys. Sometimes you respond like kindergartners. You say, "enlightenment is an outdated term, and only really covers having knowledge, intellect and rationale, nothing else"; 'ONLY REALLY COVERS' what the hell else would you think the word should mean? There was nothing in my post that would lead you to conclude other than philosophic learning.

When "enlightenment" is applied in the sense of philosophic learning, which this site is, it is dumb to apply it to 'normal' learning of trades and such. The word has always traditionally meant 'learning' the abstruse, not physical or trades or skills. That's why calling enlightenment a product of "the third eye" is apt; it describes what one 'sees'.

My question to you is; can you describe enlightenment from your own first-person view of its manifestation? Or, are you criticizing my definition of something you've yet to achieve for yourself?

To those of you whom this shoe fits

No wonder some of you are so fucked up in your replies. If you are looking to correct grammar and such, and that is the depth of what you get from my posts, you don't belong in a philosophy forum. If you were confused by my use of a capital letter for Enlightenment in the first sentence, you should not have been confused long. If your 'confusion' reached past the next sentences, it just shows that you stayed 'confused' and never reached the point of the post. You are too occupied with your own vast store of knowledge to ever 'learn' something new.

I am always amazed by those of you that can't speak from your own experience of enlightenment and its benefits, yet are so full of criticisms. It is as if you are denying the possibility of another knowing something you do not, and yet, you would be the first to claim it is the very same thing for which you strive to learn. You can't wear a philosopher's mantle while still remaining a No-it-all having no personal experience.

The capitalisation of "Enlightenment" refers to a historical concept most often associated with the 'long 18thC', and does not come into use in English until 1942.

Terrapin Station wrote:

HexHammer wrote:If you're talking about the Zen sense of enlightenment, the convention is to not capitalize it.

The zen version is kinda superstition, and only good for self reflection in a minor scale.

Mortalsfool wrote:

HexHammer wrote:Pure nonsense and babble, enlightenment is an outdated term, and only really covers having knowledge, intellect and rationale, nothing else. A doctor is enlighten in the ways of medical stuff, but can't build a rocket, a rocket engineer may not be able to do any medical stuff, but both are enlightened, but ignorant in each other fields of expertise.

I find it so difficult to be nice to some of you guys. Sometimes you respond like kindergartners. You say, "enlightenment is an outdated term, and only really covers having knowledge, intellect and rationale, nothing else"; 'ONLY REALLY COVERS' what the hell else would you think the word should mean? There was nothing in my post that would lead you to conclude other than philosophic learning.

When "enlightenment" is applied in the sense of philosophic learning, which this site is, it is dumb to apply it to 'normal' learning of trades and such. The word has always traditionally meant 'learning' the abstruse, not physical or trades or skills. That's why calling enlightenment a product of "the third eye" is apt; it describes what one 'sees'.

My question to you is; can you describe enlightenment from your own first-person view of its manifestation? Or, are you criticizing my definition of something you've yet to achieve for yourself?

What you speak of is parrot speeches, and doesn't understand the concept of relevance, thus you skold us for not adhering your nonsense and babble in OP.

One's personal view and definition is irrelevant, because then the insane and retard most likely will have irrelevant definitions. People that lacks rationale like "Rain Men" does, will often ask sub basic questions that they easily could look up in any dictionary, because they can't put the word in context themselves, thus must have others to think for them, acting like an external brain.

To me enlightenment is an additional layer of insight though not existing in everyone. It offers a 3rd eye perspective on the realities we experience and behold. That, I think would be the reason the metaphorical 3rd eye is usually placed in the center of one's forehead as that which, as a higher agent, sees in advance of what the eye itself actually perceives. It denotes the measure of how much more the mind is capable of understanding beyond what is usually understood and accepted which should be the prime directive of philosophy.

HexHammer wrote:

Terrapin Station wrote:

HexHammer wrote:If you're talking about the Zen sense of enlightenment, the convention is to not capitalize it.

The zen version is kinda superstition, and only good for self reflection in a minor scale.

I have a lot of affinity for Zen of the Thich Nhat Hanh/Shunryu Suzuki variety as kind of a pragmatic philosophy if it's interpreted fairly loosely, but yeah, I agree in that regard that "enlightenment" is vague, at least if it's seen as something like a difficult, almost "mystical" state.