I do wonder what a Zen monk would make out of this bodybuilding craze — Wallows

There's a strong connection between Rinzai Zen and martial arts. If you ever do Karate training there's quite a bit of Buddhist etiquette involved.

You have satisfied yourself. But none of your descriptions illuminate the matters under discussion.
You refer to a set of presumably obvious factors that have no bearing to the subject at hand.
I truly cannot understand or decipher your text as a predicate.

They do - they illuminate a bit too well!
I took that quote, the one you and others think is profound and worth marvelling at - and I showed that it was complete junk.

"The observer is the observed" Krishnamurti.

No. That's simply false. Test it. Open the cutlery draw and observe a fork. Are you a fork? Now look at a teaspoon. Are you a teaspoon? Do you miss being a fork?

It's just silly.

I am open to the idea of challenging the statement.
But your reading of it is incredibly puerile. It is so far from the intent of the expression that you may be making fun of yourself.

I interpreted it to mean that the observer is made of observations - that what the observer observes constitutes the observer.

That's not a 'puerile' reading - it is just what those words in that combination mean.

You offered what manners say I must restrict myself to calling a 'bizarre' interpretation - that what he meant was that if you are greedy, you are greed.

But that interpretation is as nonsensical as my literal one.

The world is full of bullshit artists. He is one. Philosophy - the real deal, not a pose - is about figuring out what's actually true. It is about using reason, not sitting at the feet of bullshitters and letting them shit all over you. I mean, have you read anything of quality - have you read Plato? Have you read the Apology? If you really need to follow people - and heaven's knows you shouldn't - at least follow someone clever, not a total nincompoop like Krishnamurti. The only sensible thing he said was not to follow people - but that clearly backfired.

I am not interested in "manners". I am not interested in following people, whatever that may mean.
You have a particular animus in regards to Krishnamurti, very well then.
I have read Plato. Does that give me some kind of mark? What if I am stupid about what I read in Plato?
If this is really important to you, don't treat it as something that is self-evident.
Nothing that is important is self-evident.

Nothing that is important is self-evident. — Valentinus

Why do you think that's true? Surely the truth is that some important things are self-evident and some important things are not?

It is self-evident - that is, evident to our reason - that thoughts, desires, observations and such like - require a mind to bear them. A desire that is the desire of no mind makes no real sense. Desires are always someone's desires, and thoughts are always someone's thoughts, and observations are always someone's observations.

That is self-evident and it also seems important, for it follows from it that if you are thinking, then you - a thinker - exist.

That may contradict what a Buddhist says. So then you have a choice: do you listen to a Buddhist, or do you listen to Reason? If you listen to Reason, then you will conclude that you do have a self, a mind. If you listen to a Buddhist, then you've entered a rational fly-bottle that it'll be very hard to get out of.

Minds are not observations. They can make observations - that is, they can observe things, for to be observing something is to be in a certain sort of mental state, whatever else it may involve. And minds and only minds can be in mental states. So, minds make observations. But minds are not observations.

It is also self-evident that minds - observers, that is - lack sensible properties. For questions such as "what colour is my self?" or "what does my self taste of?" make no sense.

And it is equally clear to our reason that those objects that do have sensible properties - so, objects extended in space - do not have mental states. I can sensibly wonder what you are thinking right now, but it makes no sense for me to wonder what my tub of hummus is thinking.

So, if we listen to Reason and not Krishnamurti or Buddhists, then we learn that we are minds and furthermore that we, we minds, are not extended objects. We are objects, but we are not physical things.

And so on - in this way we can slowly build a picture of our situation, but it requires careful thought, not sitting around thinking nothing and then putting on an off-the-peg worldview designed by a guru.

Bartricks 2. Krishnamurti 0 — Bartricks

Well done Bartricks! You can defeat a dead man. That's my kind of robust philosopher - one who can tell a horse from a house and is proud of it.

"The observer is the observed", as with a Metaphysical assertion, shouldn't be interpreted as being a report or proposition. Rather, these sorts of statements are better understood to be meta-cognitive speech-acts to re-conceive one's idea of self and world.

An inherent characteristic of meta-cognitive speech-acts is their circular justification, which makes them appear viciously circular and possibly self-refuting when analysed logically. But arguably this is as much true for our ordinary conceptual schemata as it is for mystical or otherwise alternative conceptual schema.

In my opinion, it isn't logically possible for Buddhists to enter into metaphysical arguments. If a closed-minded critic claims that Buddhist expressions of thought portray to him something false or meaningless, then the critic is expressing something that is undeniable; namely the inexorable effect that Buddhist expressions of thought have upon him. Given that Buddhism is a pragmatic philosophy, with the cognitive dimension of it's practice concerning therapeutic acts of thought, the current 'language-game' that the critic disputes is by definition unsuitable for him. He is invariably the best person to know what alternative language-game he is better suited to playing.

:clap:

grasped from an observer that observes

i have to assume that you meant "by an observer" to get a reasonable amount of coherency from this point. otherwise, there are too many objects within the scene. personally, this discussion needs more use of the word "epistomology"! but the play between objectivity and subjectivity does look like it has some merit.

also, isn't buddhism notoriously cagey, especially with regards to desire? i tend to think that any kind of truth that does not have an element of experience taken into account is a bit too tentative, therefore such a strong emphasis on impartiality would take away from the meaningfulness of a thing.

Thoughts and observations welcome. — Wallows

Well that went well, didn't it?

Suppose I were to say that all that can be known, and all that can be talked about is experience. That seems like a nice tidy materialist anti-mystical approach. I won't even talk about noumena, or things in themselves, and especially, for the purposes of this thread, I will forbid all talk of 'an experiencer' as something other than an experience of experiencer. The experiencer is just another experience.

So the mysticism, contradiction, and associated nonsense is all with those who suppose that the experience is something other than an experience. They are the ones talking about something beyond experience as 'the observer' that is not an observation.

It is self-evident - that is, evident to our reason - that thoughts, desires, observations and such like - require a mind to bear them. — Bartricks

It isn't. One could very well define the mind as precisely the thoughts/desires/observations/... that are experienced, rather than as some separate thing that bears them.

As to the quote "The observer is the observed", it can be read metaphorically rather than literally. Hopefully you do not dissect that way every metaphor you encounter, for instance if I talk of a white blanket of snow covering a field, you don't need to tell me that I talk nonsense because a blanket isn't made of snow and because what's covering the field isn't a blanket.

The way I interpret that quote is that the observer and the observed are not two clearly separate things: the observer is always involved in the act of observation, he doesn't observe what the world is like independent of him, rather what he observes depends on him, how he feels and what he thinks and what he desires has an influence on what he sees, so in a sense what he observes about the world is a reflection of himself, and in that sense the observer is inseparable from what he observes.

If you start from the premise that an observer is a physical body in the world that you observe, you're not gonna understand him. You're an observer, your thoughts/feelings/perceptions are part of the observation, you can see them metaphorically as a window to yourself, or even as defining yourself.

The way I interpret that quote is that the observer and the observed are not two clearly separate things: the observer is always involved in the act of observation, he doesn't observe what the world is like independent of him, rather what he observes depends on him, how he feels and what he thinks and what he desires has an influence on what he sees, so in a sense what he observes about the world is a reflection of himself, and in that sense the observer is inseparable from what he observes. — leo

That statement is standard mysticism, really. It's funny that out of it comes interpretations that reflect individual personalities. :strong:

This is a topic worthy of another thread; but, thanks for pointing out how Buddhists and those from the Eastern tradition ought to be read.

It isn't. One could very well define the mind as precisely the thoughts/desires/observations/... that are experienced, rather than as some separate thing that bears them. — leo

The idea of "something separate that bears them" is an unholy reification of, ironically, materialist thinking.

It isn't. One could very well define the mind as precisely the thoughts/desires/observations/... that are experienced, rather than as some separate thing that bears them. — leo

Well, you can 'define' a mind as 'a peach', but that won't make it one.

If there is a thought, there must be a mind to bear it - yes? Doesn't your reason tell you that loud and clear?

If you are your experiences, then you're a different person moment to moment. Yet you're not, are you?

When you go into restaurant and eat some food do you refuse to pay the bill because you - this current bundle of experiences - are not the same person who ate the food minutes earlier?

No, because that thesis is obviously false, as we all know. You are not your experiences, but an object who has experiences.

This is manifest to the reason of virtually everyone. But Buddhists and other charlatans need you to quiet the voice of reason - which is what meditation is all about - so that they can fill your mind with their patently false bullshit instead. It helps, of course, if you're feeble minded already or deeply unhappy.

But consult your reason: does it not say, clearly and distinctly, that experiences cannot exist absent an experiencer?

If it does - and it does, because otherwise you don't think you exist and that's just a big lie, isn't it - then listen to your reason and believe in what it says. Or don't and become the victim of the bullshitters and live in a fantasy world of their making.

As to the quote "The observer is the observed", it can be read metaphorically rather than literally. Hopefully you do not dissect that way every metaphor you encounter, for instance if I talk of a white blanket of snow covering a field, you don't need to tell me that I talk nonsense because a blanket isn't made of snow and because what's covering the field isn't a blanket. — leo

No, I don't take everything literally. But nor do I take everything to be a metaphor. Now, what evidence do you have that "the observer is the observed" should be taken metaphorically?

Is it because taken literally it is false? I mean, obviously - patently obviously - false?

Well, I agree that if someone says something that, taken literally, would appear to be nonsense then charity invites us to try and interpret them in some other way - a way would not convict them of rank stupidity.

But if someone says something patently false, and virtually everything else they say seems patently false too, then don't discount the possibility that you are just dealing with an idiot.

The fact is there is no good reason to interpret that utterance metaphorically. And your attempt to do so fails, for how can 'the observer is the observed' plausibly be taken as a metaphor for the idea that observations require observers?? I mean, that's not a metaphorical interpretation but an act of substituting what he has said for the exact opposite.

It's as if I've said "the walker is the walk" and you've interpreted me as meaning "an act of walking has a walker" - I mean, that's just not what "the walker is the walk" means. What it means is that the walker is made of the walk - which is obviously false.

Likewise, what "the observer is the observed" means is not - not by anyone's wildest dreams - "acts of observation have observers". It means what it means, namely that the observer is no more or less than the observations - which is obviously false.

Like virtually everything else he said.

If you start from the premise that an observer is a physical body in the world that you observe, you're not gonna understand him. You're an observer, your thoughts/feelings/perceptions are part of the observation, you can see them metaphorically as a window to yourself, or even as defining yourself. — leo

Note too that I did not start from that premise - I mean, where do I make such an assumption? I assume that only that what reason represents to be the case should be default trusted, and that reason represents any thought to have a bearer. That's a truth of reason that, in practice, you recognise and act on. But that leaves open exactly what kind of a thing the bearer is - it certainly does not amount to assuming that the bearer is a physical thing.

You're just making rookie mistakes. That is, you're conflating experiences with that which they are experiences of.

Imagine that I read a book about Caesar. I have not, and will never meet Caesar in person. All I can do is read about him. Does that licence me to conclude that Caesar is a book? That as, because all I have experience of where Caesar is concerned is so much ink and paper, then Caesar himself is just so much ink and paper?

No, only a fool would draw such a conclusion. The book is indeed made of ink and paper, but what it is 'about' - Caesar - is not.

We have experiences. But that does not licence the conclusion that everything is an experience or that all we can know are experiences.

By that logic I can never know about Caesar, only ink and paper. Yet I know a lot about Caesar, including that he is not made of ink and paper.

Of course, if I expressed that in broken English and contradicted myself a few times you'd consider it profound.

I mean, have you read anything of quality - have you read Plato? Have you read the Apology? — Bartricks

Yeah! It's like, do you even lift bro?? Are you capable of using cold hard reason? (not many are! you have to be tough!) Like, Have you read Descartes, rookie? Do you even know anything about overt overcompensation?Like, are you even aware of how certain types of people tend to compulsively project passivity and vulnerability onto things so they can play out obvious fantasies of being active and invulnerable?

So true, preach brother. A bunch of rubes on here who can't recognize the reason of plato.

Yes, that's what I said. Do you have a lift, or are you still using stairs like a rookie.

I am not sure what your point is. Maybe you could furnish me with some more Krishnamurti wisdom and we'll take it from there.

Subtle, you little ball-pin hammer, you.

The hammered is the hammer.

Passions, bitches.

No, I have only read the Discourse on the method and the Meditations, and his correspondence with Princess Elizabeth. Nothing else.

:grin: ...a typical 'naive realist' response, breathtakingly ignorant of the literature !
Next time you notice that you are having an argument with 'yourself', or ponder a lucid dream , in which that 'you' has been operating quite happily in an 'illogical' scenario, you might get an inkling of what
the ephemeral 'self' is about.
I say 'might' of course because that belligerent member of your 'self committee' will bully the others into submission!

Hot air. Address the argument. Maybe put to use something you've read in the literature - for you're quite right, I haven't read any of it. Just Descartes. Take me to school.

It (your committee) is not ready for the literature ! First it needs to observe its daily operations involving its internal squabbles. As one writer put it, it needs to 'wake up'.

“Man has no individual i. But there are, instead, hundreds and thousands of separate small "i"s, very often entirely unknown to one another, never coming into contact, or, on the contrary, hostile to each other, mutually exclusive and incompatible. Each minute, each moment, man is saying or thinking, "i". And each time his i is different. just now it was a thought, now it is a desire, now a sensation, now another thought, and so on, endlessly. Man is a plurality. Man's name is legion.”

There are no 'teachers' in understanding the nature of self. Only the experiences of others...fellow explorers, who have come to understand its ephemeral nature.