Give me an argument. — Bartricks

I gave you an argument. Address the argument with something other than hot air.

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. — unenlightened

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? — Bartricks

If your experience is of yourself reading a book, you are entitled to conclude that there are experiences of self and experiences of books. And from such an experience you are no more entitled to conclude that Caesar exists than reading a Harry Potter book entitles you to think that he exists. History as not experienced, is inferred from a multitude of dubitable experiences, and likewise the self is inferred from a multitude of experiences - unless of course, it is directly experienced. In either case, it is formed from experience, or inferred from experience.

This is indeed the dreadful Cartesian error. "I think therefore I am" is the reification of a grammatical term into an immaterial, mystical mind. The subject of one sentence is the object of another sentence. But do not conclude from this that there are 'the subject' and 'the object'. Quite the opposite.

https://theimmeasurable.org/is-there-a-real-you-what-is-the-self?utm_term=Krishnamurti%20self&gclid=Cj0KCQjwuNbsBRC-ARIsAAzITucU24W

Julian Baggini, Susan Blackmore, Sam Harris, Thomas Metzinger, obviously haven't read Descartes, or didn't understand him, or are trying to sell some horrible mystical bullshit. PhDs and professorships mean nothing these days.

Either that or @Bartricks is missing a trick. :scream:

:cool: !

I'll have to go with Barticks the Banana-head on this one. Experiencer and experience are two sides of the same coin. They imply one another. You can't delete one half of the analysis and still have something that makes sense. Only complete morons fail to see this. The last sentence added to comply with forum norms.

'Two sides of the same coin' is correct. However it has implications for the naive realism we all use in everyday transactions in which we think of as 'subjects' observing 'seperate 'objects'. It implies the deeper understanding that a 'thing' like a 'fork' only has ontological status in terms of human functionality. Nor does that status imply 'persistence of structure' except in terms of human lifespans. In short, the social acquisition of the word 'fork' involves a uniquely human set of expectancies of experience, we use to plan our activities. But that species specific and culture specific view of 'an object' is also valid for any human concept, from 'rocks' to 'gods'!

So to say 'the observer is the observed' is to imply that the status of focus on 'an object' is inextricable from the perceptual set/needs of the culturally conditioned observer who contextually defines the nature of its 'objectivity'.
And that much is NOT mystical !

Now, in my opinion, the mysticism (for want of a better word) ensues when the individual begins to recognize their conditioning and their active and variable participation in defining 'the world' . This leads to the realization of 'an impermanent ' biased self' doing the 'observation', and hence the attempt to transcend it.

to say 'the observer is the observed' is to imply that the status of focus on 'an object' is inextricable from the perceptual set/needs of the culturally conditioned observer who contextually defines the nature of its 'objectivity'.
And that much is NOT mystical ! — fresco

Unity vs. Disunity. Two sides of the same coin. It's here that the mystic realizes she's on the boundary of mind: where it can go no further.

And so the difference between the mystic and the philosopher is that the mystic doesn't try to explain it, the philosopher, in love with his own dumb-ass opinions, does.

I don't know if krushnamurti was a mystic or a philosopher. But who cares?

Julian Baggini, Susan Blackmore, Sam Harris, Thomas Metzinger, obviously haven't read Descartes, or didn't understand him, or are trying to sell some horrible mystical bullshit. PhDs and professorships mean nothing these days — unenlightened

Yes, I'd say there's a very decent chance of that. But prove me wrong - use what you've gleaned from these hacks and show me where I've gone wrong.

Dude, I'm a heroic super philosophy educator and all, but I know my limits. I wouldn't attempt to show you the nose in front of your face.

Got it in one! Congratulations! The observer is the observed.

No, you mean "I observe my self" not "The observer is the observed".

Plus you don't. But Meh. Let's just be clear though "The observer is the observed" doesn't mean "I observe the observer"

For instance, I am observing a cat. Am I the cat I am observing? no.
I am now observing a table. Am I the table I am observing. No. I am observing a computer monitor with the inchoate spewings of an ignoramus all over it - am I that computer monitor? No. And so on.

Anyway, tell me about this self that you say you observe. Does it have a shape?

"I observer my self" not "The observer is the observed". — Bartricks

I can well imagine that you are not your self, and I commiserate, but as it happens, I am myself, so when I see myself the observer is indeed the observed.

No, I am my self just as you are your self.

But, like I say, tell me more about this self that you say you can observe. Does it have a colour?

I am observing a cat. Am I the cat I am observing? no. — Bartricks

I'm very glad to hear it. But it would be a bit silly to suppose that anyone suggested that everything one ever observed was oneself, except in a trivial 'all is one universe' sense which I think we are grown up enough to pass by as uninteresting.

I am my self just as you are your self. — Bartricks

That's a great comfort, but what is your evidence? I think you should answer your own questions too.

tell me more about this self that you say you can observe. Does it have a colour? — Bartricks

I already told you, it has the colour and texture of the void. But answer your own questions before you ask me any more. In the meantime I am taking your advice and going to bed, alas without the yak's piss, so you will have plenty of time to consider the matter and come back with both your own answers and a new penetrating question.

Or even some kind of a thesis or argument.

But it would be a bit silly to suppose that anyone suggested that everything one ever observed was oneself — unenlightened

Yes, so "the observer is the observed" is false. I am observing a cat. Yet I am not a cat.

Let's replace it, then, with 'the observer can be observed".

Okay, as I said right at the outset, that is not as obviously false as what he actually said, but it is still false.

You have said that you can observe your self - that you are aware of your self via an act of observation.

I do not think that is true. I have asked you what your self looks like. I have asked you what colour and shape it is.

You have answered that it is the colour of the void. What colour is that please? Puce?

K not a philosopher ? In 1985 the UN Secretariat disagreed with you.

https://www.google.com/search?q=Krishnamurti+United+Nations&oq=Krishnamurti+United+Nations&aqs=chrome..69i57j69i59j69i61.10921j0j8&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

Where the self is, love is not

The pity of this discussion: all the "Ad Hominem's". The most elementary of all the informal logical fallacies to understand, yet so easily the most difficult one to avoid. Old Jiddu most be laughing in his grave / ashes reading this!

First, @Bartricks, shut up. Second, everyone else please stay on topic. A good lot of this will soon be deleted.

Edit: Apologies to those who had interesting posts deleted because they were caught up in a chain of crap mostly initiated by a single poster here.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/S5_(modal_logic)

Grab it before the purge.

EDIT: Sorry meant to post this:

https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/58946/when-are-accessibility-relations-satisfied

The observer is the observed — J. Krishnamurti

That's as obvious as it is unrealized. This is a common issue with people and probably with all life capable of observing. What is obvious is often among the first things to be missed. Whether the realization "the observer is observed" is beneficial or not remains to be seen. However, at first glance it does seem pleasant to realize it. It touches upon meta-thinking I believe and presumably enhances the experience of life or not. You be the judge.

What, if any, deeper meaning does it have?

Apart from an amplified sense of being/existence it could quite possibly open doors to new types of conscious experience and knowledge about the universe.

Missed it.

Missed it. — Banno

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/4718/accessibility-relations-across-possible-worlds

It's kinda rough but I got up to speed on that topic fairly quickly. Just a matter of an overactive neural network trying to understand things.

For what's it worth I can tell you something about my own experience with Krishnamurti. It was many years ago, between 30 and 40, that I met him in my local library. The title: "The First and Last Freedom". I was impressed, deeply impressed - here, at last, was the answer to so many questions - a writer able to penetrate to the very core of life's issues and mysteries! After that I started with his "Notebooks" completing all three of them. At that stage I developed what I want to call a "Krishnamurtian method of thinking" which lasted for a few years. Now, years later, looking back, the question is, what was it about this man that made him so special at that stage of my life. The first, and the last thing about him to always bear in mind, is that he has an almost "uncanny" ability to draw you into his way of thinking doing this in a psychological way which is so convincing, because it is pretends to be nothing else than pure philosophical thinking. The key concept which is always implicitly present in all his writings is "subjectivism": everything about which he argues in his "dialogues" is eventually reduced to some type of subjectivism. This element features so strongly in all his writings that I doubt if objective reality plays anything more but a very minor role in his thought. Finally be warned: the spell that he casts can be a strong one and once entangled escape may be a harder one than you think!

Interesting reflection and similar to my own although I never did meet him. But I have to protest the ‘pretence of philosophical thinking’. Krishnamurti never used the word ‘philosophy’ in my recollection nor claimed to be a philosopher or sought recognition as a philosopher.

And there’s also a problem with describing his teaching as ‘subjectivism’ insofar as he always questioned the reality of ‘the subject’ in the sense of there being a separate witness of thought or experiencer. ‘The subject’ is precisely what is dissolved in his teaching.

I learned some things from Krishnamurti which have become part of my outlook on life, although I never felt any sense of being entangled or attached to him.

//ps// will also add that First and Last Freedom I think is one of the essential books of the 20th century. Also very much liked Awakening of Intelligence, and the Notebooks. How well they last, I can’t predict, but as said, important books in my development.//

Wayfarer. Thank you for your comments. About K's being a philosopher and his subjectivism: although he never claimed to be a philosopher it is impossible for him to escape from an "underlying, implicit philosophy" which become clear in an evaluative and critical study of his thought. Why "subjectivism"? If you take a careful look at this "dissolving" of the subject, it is an attempt to "dissolve" the ego from being an entity separate from itself. In other words, overcoming the dualistic sense of self constituting it as being monistic in its essence, but then still being nothing more than a subject - therefore my emphasis on the "subjectivistic" nature of all his teachings. Don't know if you will agree with me on this one?

The observer is the observed. — J. Krishnamurti

if you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss also gazes into you.

BrianW. Exactly, the abyss cannot gaze into you without your being there to be gazed into - no abyss possible without you. So "you" are needed twice: to gaze and to be gazed into - how central "you" are in this situation!

Don't know if you will agree with me on this one? — Daniel C

Well - kind of! I see Krishnamurti as being archetypical of a certain kind of Indian sage. Despite his lifelong refusal to admit to affiliation with any school or sect, he was very close in spirit to Buddhism - but not "Buddhism" as a cultural phenomenon or as pre-packaged goods or (heaven forbid!) a religion.

In one of his biographies (Krishnamurti by Pupul Jayakar) there's an account of his meeting with the Dalai Lama. This happened not long after H. H. went into exile, in the 1960's. When Krishnamurti's teaching was explained to H. H. in advance of the meeting, he said 'Aha! A Nāgārjuna!' He later said he found the encounter very moving and expressed the desire to meet again. But I think Krishnamurti's teaching is very similar to Nāgārjuna albeit not expressed in scholastic terminology. Both Nāgārjuna and Krishnamurti are philosophical sceptics, in the original sense - doubting or denying any kind of methodology, claim or proposition. Scepticism in pursuit of liberation - nirodha, or mokṣa, or Nirvāṇa - ideas which are barely understood in Western culture. (See https://www.amzn.com/0739125060 for a book on the relationship between early scepticism and Buddhism.)

I discovered a long interest in Buddhism through Krishnamurti, by way of trying to better approach those states that he described, because after about 5 years of reading his books, I felt really no closer to understanding them, even if on some level they clicked. I thought I had found it in Sōtō Zen. Still at it, but it remains elusive.

Well - I think you have a laudable - laudable - appreciation for reason as demonstrated, clearly, by your deep appreciation for the fifteen thinkers covered in any phil 101 class. Locke, Plato, Kant. The guys!

And then I think you have a strange Active/Passive Dominant/Submissive Strong/Weak way of looking at philosophy which surfaces again and again. The tough boys. Hume, Descartes, Aristotle. You treat them like magic cards.

One weird thing was when you accused a very non-sam-harris reading member, of being a Sam Harris reader. I don't like Sam Harris much at all, but I do know that hate for Sam Harris is a badge of inclusion - signifying Real Intellectual - in reddit philosophy circles. It seemed significant that you couldn't engage an opponent without deliriously turning them into a stereotype, even though it didn't fit. Weirdly didn't fit. And then did a lot of sex jokes that are funny because they're high/low - Descartes plus dicks. Philosophy plus barroom - I'm not too pretentious and I'm not too the other thing.

So bluntly : I think I know you. You're a reddit philosophy guy. Every post you've said fits the general beats. You're mean, but not smart enough to back it up, though you think you are. You're bar tricks. An easy cite, a pun - an intellectual! I drink therefore....

tldr: don't be a dick, at least until you can back it up. The people you believe you're trumping are far ahead of you.