. You should not pay attention to me ... Normally, the mediocres stay in their beautiful dreams ... wich are the majority ... hence the suffering and the conflict in the world ... so please do not pay attention to me ...

. There's just one truth ... as there's just an universe ... truth is always "uni" ... the ocean tastes the same in every corner ...

I will enjoy my dream, you enjoy your dogmatism.

Anand-Haqq I like your prose and construct. I do not pay attention to you, but I believe you could improve.

...Yet you paid attention in English class and refer to a dictionary; how do you know the word me means what you think it means?

Try the word terrorist, terror-wrist. Do you spot the connotation?

Me has meant for several years to me, 'one at the forefront of his chain of memories'.

'Do not pay attention to me', I won't.

I think that you make some extremely good points and your posts are worth reading but the matter is not straightforward. The seeker may sometimes find truths directly, as expressed in the Van Morrison song title, 'No method, No Guru, No Teacher.'

However, I imagine that most people who seek to explore the mysteries of life, some kind of training is important. It is possible to get lost in one's own thoughts or in books. I do believe that the ideas of others provide us with some useful parameters, but we still need to explore these in our own individual consciousness. I don't think that we are meant to be mere reading machines. It involves the whole balance between the direct and indirect ways to knowledge and understanding. This was explored well in the song by The Waterboys, 'The Whole of the Moon.'

. That's good ...

. You must be a scholar ... A knowledgeable ...

. For the blind man, who likes to rationalize intelectually, that's good friend ...

. Please, go on with your jargon ... With your ideologies ... With your prejudices ... Trying to demystify what is intelectually a rose flower ... Trying to demystify the non-demystifiable ... Eyes are not needed ...

. I would like to know ... If you believe in the sun ... ?

. Do it as you've been always doing ... Let your so-called mind talk ...

It is likely that wondering and the sense of mysteries led to most of the developments in civilisation, not just philosophy and religion, but the emergence of the arts and sciences. — Jack Cummins

Agreed. said in another way, if we didn't wonder, there would be no will to critique anything, or anyone. Quite simply, it seems no progress would be made.

I am inclined to think it acts as a general motivational factor in leading people to unique and creative solutions to all kinds of problems. — Jack Cummins

Sure. As a typical example, the infamous 'all events must have a cause' axiom (metaphysical axiom) propels science into new discoveries everyday. It drives or moves a theory forward, sometimes into reality.

And so this mystery associated with consciousness (wonder) seems to be the source of much development. Wonder itself, in the context of a free society, must continue to be encouraged, and at least be guided by such virtuous ideals that it would foster or enhance the human condition that we seek to improve... .

The mystery though, as to why we wonder, is still a mystery. Yet without it, we are just...?
We embrace mystery without even knowing it.

Your question does bring me back to a question which came up in my thread on Jung and God, which is whether the whole expression of our consciousness is the actual revelation of mysteries as revealed by 'God'. In that thread, I ended up exploring the whole paradox of belief in God, or the opposite. It certainly involves the question of God's existence, but probably involves so much more, especially the whole nature of consciousness, ranging from our own to the cosmic.

However, I think that when we touch upon this whole realm it so difficult because we are looking at the most complex mystery of all. The mystics have stood in awe, and philosophers have talked themselves into convoluted knots. But, it is indeed so complex, and covers the entire history of philosophy, ranging from the popular texts to the most esoteric .It is probably easier to consider consciousness itself, aside from whether we choose to speak of it as being derived from 'God'.

The underlying source of consciousness seems to me to be mysterious, or awesome, whether we call it God or refer to it in any other terminology. I am just surprised that some people don't see this as a mystery, or mysterious at all.

The underlying source of consciousness seems to me to be mysterious, or awesome, whether we call it God or refer to it in any other terminology. I am just surprised that some people don't see this as a mystery, or mysterious at all. — Jack Cummins

Of course, people delve into this question, and in doing so have developed a deeper understanding of who we are, what is our place, and where lies the meaning. It is just that this forum ideas are relatively static, and conformist in nature, and by just remaining here, one develops into an extended carbon copy. If you want to develop further, then you cannot be limited by the static assumptions and knowledge within which this forum is cemented in.

If you wish to extend in new directions, just PM me, and I'll give you references. Your mode of of travel and direction has to shift.

"The real voyage of discovery consists not in seeking new landscapes, but in having new eyes". [Proust]

It's like this –

meditate : contemplate
mantra : meta
breath : rhythm
silence : melody
cycle : spiral
labyrinth : maze
waterfall : ocean
eclipse : stars
void : horizon
( ... )
eternity : philosophy

In every tradition, it seems, the mystic seeks to escape from time (re: e.g. moksha) whereas the philosopher, as I understand her, defies – problematizes – what Cioran calls "the fall into time" (via e.g. ek-stasis, or "unselfing") ... in order to escape from eternity (of monotonous subjectivity, or "fate") if, without irony, only for brief, scattered, moments.

You are probably correct to speak of 'subjective monotony' as it is the opposite to the contemplation of the mysterious. In life, there can be gravitational between the extremes. Perhaps the search within philosophy is about seeking to escape from this monotony. How and in what way the mysterious is solved is likely to have on outcome on us. It may be that if the answers arrived at dispelled the mysterious altogether we would feel more trapped in the subjective monotony than ever.

How and in what way the mysterious is solved is likely to have on outcome on us. — Jack Cummins

In philosophy I/we refer to horizons rather than "the mysterious"; it's not to be "solved" but to be contemplated while I/we think work create love & suffer ...

in order to escape from eternity (of monotonous subjectivity) if, without irony, only for brief, scattered, moments. — 180 Proof

He not busy being born....

Which reminds me of:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MGxjIBEZvx0

You are quite right to query my use of the word 'solved' and, strangely, I don't think that anyone has done so far. I am turning it into the language of detective games. It must stem back to my childhood games and reading of 'The Famous Five' books.

Aside from solving philosophy mysteries, I went out exploring to see what has reopened, and I managed to buy a Peter Gabriel compilation in a record shop. I haven't played it yet, but it may help with contemplation. The whole idea of contemplation is much calmer in tone, whereas solving does seem to arise from anxiety for answers, or existential anguish.

:smirk:

"Look out kid
It's somethin' you did
God knows when
But you're doing it again"

Amor fati, Bob! :victory:

:

That song just strikes me as one of the best little pieces of rock'n'roll.

Helps folks get to :starstruck: .

The question of the existence of God is not solely about determining an answer, but about establishing rapport, creating dialogue, and ultimately creating shared meanings which can then have actual influences in the lives of individuals and thereby an impact on our collective and shared existence (culture). Likewise for all of the other mysteries you cite.

So, in effect, to pursue these questions is to answer them. — Pantagruel

:up:

Also (kinda what you already said) the very meanings of God, free will, and so on might be there in the actual influences on our shared existence, like ripples in a pond. (I mean look for meaning in use, in what goes on in the context of our muttering.)

Just because certain problems (I'd rather not use the word 'mystery') in philosophy remain unsolved, does not mean that progress hasn't been made. There are numerous positions and responses to these problems, some more convincing than others. We could say certain problems are provisionally solved, or even conditionionally. It's a slow march to victory but progress is made filling in the details.

The whole question of shared existence is a very important aspect of knowledge and the way we go about our individual searching. This is where the relativism of our times gets particular complex.

Yesterday, I was chatting to someone who is Muslim and is married to a Christian. He was saying that if they have children, he does not think that it will be difficult to bring them up with this combination of beliefs. As he spoke, I was thinking that if I was brought up such a combination of beliefs I would be rather confused. However, the way in which my friend described the way he saw it was of how it is possible to assemble the parts we find helpful from various belief systems.

After that conversation, I was wondering whether we are in the position of doing that in our current time and to what extent does that work? Does it mean that we choose what we like and reject the rest? Surely, we need to go beyond what we like and dislike. However, even if we go beyond that, it still means that we are building up our ideas from the fragments of a relativist culture. Even I, who was brought up within Catholicism as a child, have to admit that I went on to develop my own ideas, and am still doing so, in this context. I think that the whole way we approach the big questions must be so different from when people spent their lives embracing one shared worldview. Of course, there were probably divergences and some meeting of different beliefs, but not to the extent of the present time. So, even though we are in shared belief systems in certain ways, we are more likely to go solo in our journeying.

the way he saw it was of how it is possible to assemble the parts we find helpful from various belief systems.
After that conversation, I was wondering whether we are in the position of doing that in our current time and to what extent does that work? Does it mean that we choose what we like and reject the rest? — Jack Cummins

That does seem to be the way of the times we live in. It's easy to take for granted, but it was a revolutionary idea.

The error seems not sufficiently eradicated, that the operations of the mind, as well as the acts of the body, are subjects to the coercion of the laws. But our rulers can have authority over such natural rights only as we have submitted to them. The rights of conscience we never submitted, we could not submit. We are answerable for them to our God. The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. — Tom Jefferson

That last line is the point. I imagine Jefferson making it easier to swallow as he leads up to it.
I think of this as our meta-religion, a kind of civic religion that governs private religion. All 'decent' and 'reasonable' people (roughly by definition) have to give other reasonable and decent people the space and freedom to work out their own salvation with fear and trembling or (hopefully) 'gradients of bliss.' The devil is in the political details, but we can ignore them for the moment.

I think that the whole way we approach the big questions must be so different from when people spent their lives embracing one shared worldview. — Jack Cummins

I think Athens and Rome probably had the same general feel at times (judging by history books) but yeah surely in general we are swamped with a new density of information, the largest menus of possible personalities ever. I can even understand people being nostalgic for some lost age where things were simple (probably an illusion.) Do you know Sartre?

Man is nothing else but that which he makes of himself. That is the first principle of existentialism. And this is what people call its “subjectivity,” using the word as a reproach against us. But what do we mean to say by this, but that man is of a greater dignity than a stone or a table? For we mean to say that man primarily exists – that man is, before all else, something which propels itself towards a future and is aware that it is doing so. Man is, indeed, a project which possesses a subjective life, instead of being a kind of moss, or a fungus or a cauliflower. Before that projection of the self nothing exists; not even in the heaven of intelligence: man will only attain existence when he is what he purposes to be. Not, however, what he may wish to be. For what we usually understand by wishing or willing is a conscious decision taken – much more often than not – after we have made ourselves what we are. I may wish to join a party, to write a book or to marry – but in such a case what is usually called my will is probably a manifestation of a prior and more spontaneous decision. If, however, it is true that existence is prior to essence, man is responsible for what he is. Thus, the first effect of existentialism is that it puts every man in possession of himself as he is, and places the entire responsibility for his existence squarely upon his own shoulders. And, when we say that man is responsible for himself, we do not mean that he is responsible only for his own individuality, but that he is responsible for all men. — S

https://wmpeople.wm.edu/asset/index/cvance/sartre

I'm not saying Sartre is 100% right, but it's like Jefferson taken to the next level. It's not just or essentially a loss of God but also a loss of trust in the 'adults' who run the world. The child sees that the world is not run wisely. Like Lords of the Flies when a warship rescues the kids. The 'grownups' are playing the same mad game on a larger scale. The line about 'responsible for all men' indicates a healthy seriousness. We set examples for others. We want community, to live according to principles with others, however difficult it is to find and establish them.

Maybe it's like a town in the middle of a forest. We all are expected to go into the forest (our private lives) and experiment. But the town, where we all have to live with one another, is subject to rules.

You ask me if I know Sartre. Strangely, I just began reading 'Being and Nothingness' this week. I am finding it hard work really. The one quote which seems to stand out for me so far is,
'Kierkergaard describing anguish in the face of what lacks characterises it as anguish in the face of freedom. But Heidegger, whom we know to have been greatly influenced by Kierkergaard considers anguish instead as the apprehension of nothingness.'

Personally, I think that the idea of nothingness is the worst possibility when contemplating the mysterious.

I can see your point of view, but I am not sure that the three big philosophy questions can just be neatly swept away, after all the centuries of discussion. — Jack Cummins

IMO, it's a personal issue whether they are swept away or not. Take the God issue. For some people, including me, this is settled. Doesn't mean I can convince others they have nothing to worry about on this score. I can give reasons, but that's all. Same with free will, which was only briefly but once sincerely an issue for me as I was losing my faith of God, to some degree because I couldn't make sense of free will in the context of eternal judgment and the problem of evil, etc., but also because I was exposed to the wider world and books from that world. Life after death fits in here too. I guess I let go of all of them at the same time. It happens slowly, but there's a point where one is conscious of it, one is emotionally beyond former worries.
I can vaguely imagine events that could change this view, but they'd have to be extreme. I would need to be visited by an angel & flown to Heaven or something.

FWIW, I think linguistic philosophy isn't purely negative. It allowed me, anyway, to see language in a new way, but that means seeing 'mind' in a new way, seeing our profound connection, that the idea of us as lonely ghosts in the machine is fundamentally flawed. In short, I am a 'we' first and an 'I' second. Or that's where I ended up. Might even sound mystical, and maybe some 'mystics' were misunderstood linguistic philosophers. That's only 50% joke.

You ask me if I know Sartre. Strangely, I just began reading 'Being and Nothingness' this week. I am finding it hard work really. — Jack Cummins

Yeah, it's a slog. I've never read every page. But I have a paperback that includes the chapter Existential Psychoanalysis, and there are some great passages in that. Have you looked at Nausea? Probably a more pleasant intro. I'd recommend just jumping around in Being and Nothingness. Or personally I hate reading anything that bores me. I trust my guts.

Is it the nothingness of death without an afterlife that messes with you? Or the idea of the emptiness of all things ? (Vanity, all is vanity...)?

For the moment, the jazz is playing; there is no melody, just notes, a myriad of tiny tremors. The notes know no rest, an inflexible order gives birth to them then destroys them, without ever leaving them the chance to recuperate and exist for themselves.... I would like to hold them back, but I know that, if I succeeded in stopping one, there would only remain in my hand a corrupt and languishing sound. I must accept their death; I must even want that death: I know of few more bitter or intense impressions. — Nausea

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Jean-Paul_Sartre

I think that whether progress has been made in the progress of ideas. There is so little consensus in shared ideas and so much fragmentation. Some can make sense of it, but I think that many people are overwhelmed and drift more in the direction of light entertainment rather than asking deeper questions.

I am reading an ebook of 'Being and Nothingness' and it would probably be easier in a paper copy. I remember looking at the book in a library and thinking that it looked boring, but I am finding reading it to be a kind of meditative experience. But, I am taking the book slowly.

I think really one of the worst forms of nothingness I would see is if there is no life after death. I do think that this life is worth focusing upon, but it just seems that for some people that there is so much pain and suffering. If that is all there is, that seems so sad. However, I also see the possibility of extinction of humanity as an even worse form of nothingness, far worse than the thought of my own death.

.

I think really one of the worst forms of nothingness I would see is if there is no life after death. I do think that this life is worth focusing upon, but it just seems that for some people that there is so much pain and suffering. If that is all there is, that seems so sad. However, I also see the possibility of extinction of humanity as an even worse form of nothingness, far worse than the thought of my own death. — Jack Cummins

I love that you mention the second death of the species as a greater terror. I have thought about that too. My secular version of partial immorality is that each generation replaces the last. We all participate in a grand conversation. Our selves are mostly inherited fragments of this conversion in new bodies, but each generation adds a little something and something is perhaps forgotten.

Unlike sense experience, thought is essentially communicable. Thinking is not an activity performed by the individual person qua individual. It is the activity of spirit, to which Hegel famously referred in the Phenomenology as “‘I’ that is ‘We’ and ‘We’ that is ‘I’” (Hegel [1807] 1977: 110). Pure spirit is nothing but this thinking activity, in which the individual thinker participates without himself (or herself) being the principal thinking agent. That thoughts present themselves to the consciousness of individual thinking subjects in temporal succession is due, not to the nature of thought itself, but to the nature of individuality, and to the fact that individual thinking subjects, while able to participate in the life of spirit, do not cease in doing so to exist as corporeally distinct entities who remain part of nature, and are thus not pure spirit.

A biological species is both identical with and distinct from the individual organisms that make it up. The species has no existence apart form these individual organisms, and yet the perpetuation of the species involves the perpetual generation and destruction of the particular individuals of which it is composed. Similarly, Spirit has no existence apart from the existence of individual self-conscious persons in whom Spirit becomes conscious of itself (i.e., constitutes itself as Spirit). Just as the life of a biological species only appears in the generation and destruction of individual organisms, so the life of Spirit involves the generation and destruction of these individual persons. Viewed in this light, the death of the individual is necessitated by the life of infinite Spirit.
...
Arguing thus, Feuerbach urged his readers to acknowledge and accept the irreversibility of their individual mortality so that in doing so they might come to an awareness of the immortality of their species-essence, and thus to knowledge of their true self, which is not the individual person with whom they were accustomed to identify themselves. They would then be in a position to recognize that, while “the shell of death is hard, its kernel is sweet” (GTU 205/20), and that the true belief in immortality is

a belief in the infinity of Spirit and in the everlasting youth of humanity, in the inexhaustible love and creative power of Spirit, in its eternally unfolding itself into new individuals out of the womb of its plenitude and granting new beings for the glorification, enjoyment, and contemplation of itself. (GTU 357/137) — link

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ludwig-feuerbach/

I agree with Feuerbach, so that the second death is more troubling than the typical first death. I really don't know why the second death doesn't bother me more. It should, but it doesn't. I think age is a big factor.

<2 tabs open, sorry for double posting>

There is so little consensus in shared ideas and so much fragmentation — Jack Cummins

We might say the same about the various interpretations of quantum physics. Yet, the fact that there are various interpretations with no clear consensus (yet) does not indicate a lack of progress. Surely, lack of progress would mean the absence of ideas.

Thanks for the link to Feuerbach. I will try to have a read of some of his ideas.

Yes, I am sure that you are right that there is a lot of progress. It may be that we just need more synthetic understanding rather than simply more new ideas in the future.