Most bannings of real people. Any of particular note. — fdrake

"Real people" as in not socks? That's strange, cause whenever i happen to see a notification it is usually about socks being banned. In any case, so the fanfare isn't strategically decided?

Maybe i should have pinged @Baden

To members of the central committee (whoever is on duty): Are all bannings announced on this horn loudspeaker (thread) ?

Along the lines, you have also understood lack? The nature of it? How it arises in a person? What are its effects. How we respond to a perception of lack etc? The entire movement of lack? You have reflected and processed all these? — skyblack

You cut/cherry picked one question (italicized above) and gave your answer. I recommend you address ALL questions in the context they are being asked, and also ask questions (like you see me asking) instead of assuming, forming opinions, or putting words in my mouth. To quickly touch on what you have said, I'm not "after" anything. At this time we are simply attempting to understand your objection.

Now, again, Have you understood the nature of lack?

Along the lines, you have also understood lack? The nature of it? How it arises in a person? What are its effects. How we respond to a perception of lack etc? The entire movement of lack? You have reflected and processed all these? — skyblack

Are you going to go with what you have said before, viz

It seems that for most people, their intuitive response to an experience of lack is not gratitude, but sadness, contempt, or anger. — baker

Or are you going to answer all questions and add more?

Of course. How else do you think I have my opinion on the matter? — baker

I'm asking questions, ain't I? I will recommend you do the same. Instead of forming opinions that may or or may not be correct. But more on this in a moment.

First, i had to repeat the questions 3 times for you to give a straight answer, after you initially pretended-

Not sure what you're asking. — baker

What i was asking were straightforward questions, questions you were attempting to evade for some reason. Please stay away from any evasion tactics, if you wish to continue.

Who is "we"? Hence, it seems you're after a universally applicable explanation of gratitude that will hold for every person, regardless of said person's specifics. — baker

The following were my questions on "lack"

Note: continued on next post

So, one may say, a 'debate' about the existence or the absence of a fundamental reality is not the same as an 'inquiry' (without prejudice) into the same. While the former is superficial, frivolous, and merely "cursory", it is only in the latter where the question of inter-relational "impact" arises. The way to such an inquiry passes through the signposts of truthfulness, integrity, a sincere wish to find out, a passionate dedicated energy. Contrary to popular belief, an inquiry into what is true, isn't the cup o tea for just any TDH. Evidently it requires some qualifications.

I'm happy to engage with you on "what is," but not so much a game of hide the ball. If there is a metaphysical statement about existence that is somehow "true" irrespective of our ability to imagine it, experience it, or otherwise engage with it and its truth has utterly no impact on how we conduct or ought conduct our lives, I have difficulty understanding how we might inquire/investigate the statement. The ineffable is, perhaps, shareable in a place that isn't wholly constituted by the written word, but as this is a text based internet forum, aside from a random link or two to something else on the internet, I've got nothing.

If someone has somehow understood/groked non-self more deeply than I have and is still engaged in the business of using their inhabited bodies to do body like things, why? Or more inline with my initial question in the OP, can we empathize/relate to them in a meaningful way given that we haven't gotten it? — Ennui Elucidator

One inquires into the nature of any fundamental reality because one is passionate about finding out, not as an entertaining "engagement" with others. It appears such an inquiry demands energy, which is dissipated, for example, when one is merely looking to while away exceeds time, or an an exercise to keep the dying brain sharp while walking towards the grave.

'What is', is. For example, this is what is. One example, out of many. To play the game of hiding the ball, ignoring the factuality of what is, and still hoping to understand something "fundamental", is indeed a clear waste of one's efforts in many ways, it seems.

I'm not sure what your background is, Skyblack (not that it matters particularly) — Ennui Elucidator

That's right, it doesn't.

but I'm curious whether you think that there is a self more fundamental than our self that is aware? Are you hinting at Atman or something similar? — Ennui Elucidator

I have already said: whether there is something fundamental or not, is of no consequence to us, except as e belief, a concept, to be argued about, accepted or rejected. Therefore, a lover of wisdom puts aside such entertainment, and if serious and interested, starts inquiring into 'what is',

You came and disputed what i had said. I am asking you to explain your dispute. I am asking, you are speaking on these subjects because you have thought about them? Reflected? Processed? You practice it in your everyday living? You are qualified to speak on these things? So the questions are:

Let me ask you, you are speaking from your own understandings, right? You have understood gratitude? You speak of gratitude because you understand it and live it in your everyday life and living?

Along the lines, you have also understood lack? The nature of it? How it arises in a person? What are its effects. How we respond to a perception of lack etc? The entire movement of lack? You have reflected and processed all these? — skyblack

Not sure what you're asking. — baker

These are straightforward questions.

Let me ask you, you are speaking from your own understandings, right? You have understood gratitude? You speak of gratitude because you understand it and live it in your everyday life and living?

Along the lines, you have also understood lack? The nature of it? How it arises in a person? What are its effects. How we respond to a perception of lack etc? The entire movement of lack? You have reflected and processed all these? — skyblack

Are you having problems reading them or understanding them?

Let me ask you, you are speaking from your own understandings, right? You have understood gratitude? You speak of gratitude because you understand it and live it in your everyday life and living?

Along the lines, you have also understood lack? The nature of it? How it arises in a person? What are its effects. How we respond to a perception of lack etc? The entire movement of lack? You have reflected and processed all these?

So, what is it even if you win (or lose) the uni-verse?
You are still left with nothing but ashes in your hands

Yet,

man's tears may give birth to the phoenix,
once the eyes turn away from exemption towards accountability.

Beneath the denials, the hypocrisy, the false bravado...

Where,

each and every body is wounded,
every mind fractured,
every heart scarred,
every 'soul' thirsty,

confusion in the eyes,
sorrow in the heart,

where 'human' dignity has become a plaything,
where the dwelling is one for worshiping of death,
where death is cheaper than life,

where youth has lost its youthfulness,
where young bodies are displayed like chattels,
where love is made into a business,

where trust means nothing, friendship means nothing,
where affection is for sale to the highest available bids,

Well...

Mankind the biggest enemy of Humanity?

You have quoted me and your response is an emoji. I am asking what is the emoji about? Is there anything you want to say to me?

What's that emoji about?

You forgot to ping, but i had a feeling a response would come. Then there are those that ping, but can't make themselves admit if you show up.

It is far from perfect for sure. — I like sushi

Actually the post is good. As you can see another poster has liked it so much he or she wants you to write more.

At the time of my post (25 days ago) I felt obligated to correct the errors as they were spreading incorrect information. It is not that one does it all the time but I happened to see the essay and spontaneously felt like posting a correction note. Since it appeared that you are interested in the subjects of perception and experience, but simply lack the clarity, one felt you might appreciate a contribution.

You may backtrack on the errors and call it "reframing", but please be careful posting incorrect information that may mislead people.Now,if there is anything you will like to discuss about the corrections i have made we can do that. Or we can stop now and no further exchange is needed.

To be clear there is no dispute in "the recognition of indebtedness". We are in agreement. My post you are responding to clearly acknowledges the point, and has also tried to use some metaphors to drive home the point. What you seem to be objecting is to my usage of the words "of fulfillment, of abundance, of surplus". You are instead saying it comes from "a sense of lack". So abundance vs lack is the issue? Go ahead.

Actually, it should come from a sense of lack, from a recognition of one's insufficiency and indebtedness. — baker

Really? Perhaps you will explain? I'm listening.

Very well. Perhaps you can share, if interested, why are you speaking about the primacy of awareness when OP wants to explore Self-Abnegation. Seems like you are equating self with awareness, is that it?

The problem is in context of your response the reason for quoting is not clear. It is also not clear who is being addressed. I Initially asked you who are you speaking to, but you evaded the question with a flippant response. So i had to ask you again. You could simply clarify who is being addressed in that post, or what is the context of the quote. Why make all this so problematic? Or is that your intent?

Well since you invoke my name, I'll risk one more explanation of my pov. — unenlightened

We have not spoken before. So who are you explaining your pov to and who "invoked" (a weird choice of word) your name? Why am i being quoted? In what context? Is there something you wish for me to look at or is this some kind of attention seeking gimmick? I am going to ask you again, why was i pinged?

You have quoted two people in a seemingly odd way, who are you speaking to?

Let's take another brief look at what you have said, this time quoting your paragraphs:

Is my being OK with the non-existence an illusion? Perhaps. I express it as certainly/passionately as I do anything else. The difficulty is not in accepting that they don't exist, but in non-attachment to their non-existence. That they exist is important to me even if I know that they do not. Where would I be if I acted as if nothing existed in the same way that I acted as if things do exist? I cannot say, but I haven't tried and feel pretty committed to not doing so. Sometimes I come closer to moving towards the stillness, but somehow that movement strikes me as self-defeating. — Ennui Elucidator

It seems, the difficulty is not in a theoretical intellectual acceptance of non-existence, but in having non-attachment to our so called existence. This is easily observed in our natural clinging to life, and to all it offers/means. Therefore in order to investigate non-existence, one has to investigate into the nature of death. What it meas to die, and if it possible to die ( i.e.cease to exist) while one is alive.

The underlined parts where you are concerned about acting/action, i have already touched upon in previous post. This is a misplaced concern stemming from incomplete investigation, or as you say, simply "a gesturing in that direction". Sorry, and i think you will agree, but clarity surely needs more than a cursory gesturing.

My assertion that the self strikes me as fundamental was rejected by unenlightened, — Ennui Elucidator

The self' may "strike" as being fundamental, but are we looking for a confirmation to everything that "strikes" us, or inquiring into the truth of the matter? It is definitely comforting to believe in a fundamental self....a privileged place to lean on, or as you say

there I am occupying a seemingly privileged place of focus. The verbs of self-orientation always refer back to me as if there is some thing there doing the verby action — Ennui Elucidator

or, when you say

it is the omnipresent subject that "I" cannot help but drag into every construction. — Ennui Elucidator

Sure. This is not only comforting but also matches our experience. If you accept this then you cannot reject accountability of what is happening in the world, around your vicinity as well as far away. One self will fight another self in every possible way at all possible levels. I think unenlightened is also saying the same thing in his recent post.

My assertion that the self strikes me as fundamental was rejected by unenlightened, — Ennui Elucidator

Well, since you have mentioned Vedanta we can look into what they might say.They may ask, what self is fundamental? Is it the self with name, form, attributes, memory, experiences engaged with the objective world? Or is it the dreamer self n the dream world? Is the objective self of name, form, attributes present in deep sleep? So, a self that comes and goes, rises and sets, is conscious and unconscious, can be manipulated by drugs (medical or recreational), is affected by moods, is affected by the environment, can it be called a fundamental self?

One may point out, keep in mind we aren't even taking into account he frailties of this so called fundamental self in its "waking" hours. Furthermore, if we simply take what "strikes" us to be true, then what are really seeking? A confirmation? One would have thought the lover of wisdom would want to find out what is true per se, irrespective of whether it "strikes" or not. If one is content with what "strikes" to be true, then fine. Problems end. The story ought to end there. Does it?

But that is what I am trying to flesh out here - besides the nothingness that comes along with not-being, can we find something in not-being that informs us now? If we can't even act as if we don't exist, what am I searching for when I reach out to touch what is not there? — Ennui Elucidator

My 2 cents is, one shouldn't be "reaching out" to any belief. Whether it is the belief in a self or the non-self. Staying away from words like "nothingness", "stillness", "enlightened" is best, if one hasn't inquired deeper than a mere cursory gesturing.Otherwise one is simply adding to the bundle of ideas one is already carrying.

Very good.

Let's get something out of the way. The English translation of the minor Upanishad (in contrast to the major Upanishads) seems to be heavily edited and not a literal translation. Simply a point to note (since translations make all the difference) But thanks for sharing.

What we were looking at in the previous post, or rather identifying, is, the word is not the thing, the concept is not the thing, the idea is not the thing.

And if i may correct something you have said, with your permission of course ;-) , it is not the non-self that is imagining the non-self, it is The Self imagining the non-self, as an unverified concept. It has seen the logic behind the doctrine and now wants to latch on to it.

As to the conundrum, it needs to be crystal clear, not intellectually but experientially, the non-self by definition, cannot be objectified and bottled by the self, no matter how hard one tries. So the conundrum that you are pointing at is valid and common. They arise from an unclear or partial intellectual understanding of the subject. The conundrum is:

besides the nothingness that comes along with not-being, can we find something in not-being that informs us now? If we can't even act as if we don't exist, what am I searching for when I reach out to touch what is not there? — Ennui Elucidator

The question about the nature of action originating from "non-being" is a misplaced concern. The correct concern ought to be, have i (the questioner) understood the issue of being/non-being? Have i understood it fully? Chances are if we understand the subject fully the questions/conundrum about action won't even arise. So what is involved in the proper approach to understanding? Several of my threads have touched on it and i see no point in repeating them again.

Let's first get some facts out of the way. The doctrine of atman/an-atman that you have mentioned is not particularly codified in the Vedas, albeit with some effort a case can be made of its presence in a more subtle/essential form. But the call/differentiation between self-non-self has has indeed been made throughout history and into our present times.In any case, coming back to the point, the chronology of this doctrine (and no one has refined this to the degree the Indians have) is,

Vedas--> Upanishads--> Vedanta. Essentially, there is almost a 3000 year span between the Vedas and Adi Shankara codifying the Vedanta (the doctrine you are mentioning). There also seem to be significant changes in linguistic & philosophical emphasis. The change is baffling since there is an obvious break in the tradition somewhere. So we put this out of the way and acknowledge the nuances of this transition.

But to see if we can make sense of your questions, which aren't really yours since many are struggling with the same issue in their particular philosophical tadition,

I am totally OK with the whole non-existence thing, but outside of it being true, does it add anything to our understanding of now? — Ennui Elucidator

Here you will have to confront a question, (which is not my question but has to be your question since you are the one inquiring): how can you be "Ok" when you haven't experientially realized the truth or the falsity of self exitence/non-existence? Is your agreement merely intellectual? if it is then you you don't know the nitty gritty of what actually is. In that case your being Ok or not Ok has little meaning. Then the OK is an illusion or a delusion. This sounds reasonable doesn't it/

I cannot understand what it is to not be — Ennui Elucidator

I'm trying to imagine what it looks like to act as if the cat isn't on the mat (because the cat, the mat, and you do not exist) — Ennui Elucidator

This brings us to the problem we all need to consider, can the self abnegate itself? Or is any such abnegation still a continuity of the self, albeit it has gone underground now? Isn't the self now simply imagining it is not there? So where does that leave us? With our imaginations?

Oh and perhaps i should add to my previous post,

attempts at entrapment is the work of the mind, a repository of "experiences "

otherwise physiology doesn't know entrapment, it never has and never will,

its response is always direct and immediate. It 'addresses" everything/everyone directly,

either in responding to a challenge or in throwing a challenge,

but such a beautiful direct precise instrument has pretty much been snuffed out of its capacities by.....

I should have mentioned something else. What was said in previous post has no potency if it is only intellectually understood, debated, agreed or disagreed etc. Such activities don't bring any change in our lives. We simply carry on after the activity is over. The beauty of an insight (which is not the same as accumulated knowledge or analysis), is that it is transformative, instantly, without any evasion of the 'tomorrow'. A tomorrow that never comes.It seems to me, it is this transformation in one's life and living, which is the essence of the human aspirations.

Is there a question in OP you are trying to explore?

"What is it worth?"

Good Lord! Its like asking the lover, "what is love worth"? The lover will probably ask, "have you ever been in love"?

Gratitude, it seems, is an attitude from/of fulfillment, of abundance, of surplus.

The song of the nightingale, lion cubs playing with their mother while their father is basking under the sun, bears tumbling down the hill after a meal......the blooming of a flower.....the sprouting of a seed...

Gratitude has nothing to do with your "idea" of God (whatever 'God' means). There is no need to make everything so petty.

Thanks for the invite.

Expression must be entirely surplus, the skin that peels off and the new, unnamed, snake glides away. Or like the secrecy of the huge ocean for which waves are non-existent; like the insect so small you cannot feel it crawl over your hand.

Jesus Christ! Hold hands you love birds.

Holding hands needs faith, yes?

What’s interesting about Christianity is that it adopts whatever culture it mixes with, not destroying what is good. — Dermot Griffin

I'm not sure what you are saying is supported by history. But as you might know i have no skin in the religion-anti religion game so i will leave this subject alone. My concern is something else and i have mentioned it in the last para of my initial post.

Carry on.

But one of the things this thread immediately has me wondering about is the relationship between pessimism and atheism. — Tate

here

While the subject of faith is pretty vast and be approached in various ways, an elementary observation is one doesn't need faith when it comes to facts or 'what is'. Though the word and its associated meaning has been distorted by its association with religion, but one questions if faith is any different than any well reasoned observation. Perhaps the completion of reason is faith? Course then it won't be the christian faith or some other kind of religious/material faith.

Just curious: Why would you come to a philosophy forum to preach your religion? — Jackson

Not “preaching” anything. Simply interested in exploring the connections between classical philosophy and Christianity is all. Idc what religion anyone is. — Dermot Griffin

Preach on brother. — Jackson

Disguising pejoratives by calling it "curiosity" doesn't make it any less evident. Anything wrong with your attitude here? Who the heck are you to question his intents or his right to post here or any other forum he so pleases. For a 5 month old account you talk big. How many accounts you have in this forum? Where does your authority to talk to him like this or to censor him come from? And how did you come to the conclusion one cannot include religion in discussions of philosophy? Perhaps you might consider working on releasing whatever is stuck inside you, or chances are someone may take it out for you.