:up:

I think really one of the worst forms of nothingness I would see is if there is no life after death. — Jack Cummins

I have never imagined that there was a life after death. Nothingness has never held any terrors for me. I think resolving this issues is usually about the should and oughts we have churning around inside us.

Might even sound mystical, and maybe some 'mystics' were misunderstood linguistic philosophers. That's only 50% joke. — j0e

Nice. I think similarly.

Nice. I think similarly. — Tom Storm

I'm glad to hear it. Please say more if you feel like it, here or on the Blue Book thread. I don't like the image of linguistic philosophers as spoilsports, tho some of them can be. Wittgenstein is psychedelic even. I'd count Derrida and Rorty also in this camp. Rorty ended up reminding me of the Tao...liquefying the world, you might say.

I would imagine that you probably never believed in life after death because you weren't brought up in a religious background. I was taught to believe in heaven and hell as concrete truths, just like the alphabet or times tables. The possibility of going to hell is probably more scary than no life after death. Of course, the whole idea of hell was probably used in history in a very negative way, to frighten people.

However, I think that the idea of life after death has been one which has prevailed in history, within religions, including Judaism, Christianity and Hinduism. My understanding is that the Buddha was uncertain. One interesting area is not just whether it exists but what form it would take, with the possibility of reincarnation being so different to an eternity in heaven or hell. Also, within Christianity there does appear to be a discrepancy between whether after death one waits until a resurrection at the end of the world, or whether one exists as an immortal soul.

I first began reading on all the diverse views when I was set an essay at college, 'Is there life after death?' I continued reading and do find it a fascinating area within religious thinking. But, of course, we can find ourselves in heaven and hell in this life rather than this one. In particular, I think that Aldous Huxley's 'The Doors of Perception/ Heaven and Hell' is particularly interesting because it shows the whole dimension of entering into these states. His writing is based on his use of Mescalin, but these states have also been accessed by religious practices, such as meditation and fasting. Also, Huxley's view draws upon the perspective of Bergson in seeing the brain as filtering down of consciousness. This is different to the way most neuroscientists see consciousness, but I do think that it does provide an interesting alternative view.

Wittgenstein is psychedelic even. I'd count Derrida and Rorty also in this camp. Rorty ended up reminding me of the Tao...liquefying the world, you might say. — j0e

That's very enticing. I am not well read in this area. But the centrality of language can not be understated. I have worked for many years in the area of addictions and mental illness. In work with people it is often the words that are used, the stories that people carry about themselves that prevent recovery. Change the wording, the belief changes, the life changes. People can have 'magical' transformations when the language about their lives and problems is re-written. But I don't want to suggest that this is simple and that it always works.

I would imagine that you probably never believed in life after death because you weren't brought up in a religious background. — Jack Cummins

Not true. I had church and a Christian education until I was 17. Even before I could read, stories of the afterlife held no interest. Nevertheless I consider the parable of the good Samaritan the most significant lesson in my life and Christianity's lasting legacy in the West.

The Doors of Perception/ Heaven and Hell' — Jack Cummins

A number of middle class people I have known used this book as a justification for substance misuse. I don't blame Huxley. I personally found the book dull. Personal taste.

That's fair enough, and I do agree that the about the parable of good the Samaritan being central. Just imagine a group of philosophers standing debating consciousness and ignoring the person lying down suffering on the floor beside them.

I do agree that some people have used Huxley's book to justify substances. I am surprised that you found it dull. I read it while I was at school and was so taken aback by it that I just couldn't stop talking about, and I am still doing it here.

Thank you all for responding and for the Original Post. We are all blessed, really.

I like the posts about music. It has been instrumental in my own journey. Exploring the dimensions of el corazón :)

Language is a mystery. I don't really like the sound of my own language. It's too coarse, it sounds like ducks or geese. That's the greatest thing about written language. Nobody will notice.

I read somewhere that grammar & grimoire and spell & spelling share the same etymology. If that's the case then philosophers are like sorcerers. We shape our realities through our writings.

We are all blessings in an ocean of love

I do agree that language is mysterious because it captures so much shared meaning. Sound is important too, and conveys so much beyond words, as in music. It is also interesting that we all like such different music. My favourite band of all time is probably U2 and I am aware that so many people can't bear them.

One thing I also find is that depending on how we are feeling can make the music sound different. I remember once when I had flu, all I wanted to listen to was pop, and it was if my ears were different physically. I can't relate to classical music, but I think that is probably more because I was not brought up with it. Most of us don't like the sound of our own voices, and they sound different in our heads to when they are recorded. However, the thing which also struck me as so mysterious as a child was how music is captured in grooves.

Of course, there are physical laws involved but the transmission of communication, especially in invisible forms seem to have a certain element of mystery. That is not because we cannot explain it, but the very fact that it is possible at all. It seems amazing that things work as they do so well and, as someone reminded me a couple of days ago we should not forget the basic principle of love, in the whole process of life.

I just noticed your comment, 'Wittgenstein is psychedelic'. Taking the word psychedelic in it's true meaning, as simply mind expanding, I think that you have just recommend him to me, because, at this stage I have barely read his work at all.

I'm trying to get a 'Blue Book' thread going. There are some great quotes there that might inspire you, and I'd enjoy hearing your reactions to them. 'Mind expanding' is what I had in mind.

I just noticed your comment, 'Wittgenstein is psychedelic'. Taking the word psychedelic in it's true meaning, as simply mind expanding, — Jack Cummins

:lol: For sure Wittgenstein is that, it's part of his style. Heidegger can be one too, and others.

Of course, there are physical laws involved but the transmission of communication, especially in invisible forms seem to have a certain element of mystery. That is not because we cannot explain it, but the very fact that it is possible at all. It seems amazing that things work as they do so well and, as someone reminded me a couple of days ago we should not forget the basic principle of love, in the whole process of life. — Jack Cummins

:clap:

That's the right way to think about these things I think. All of it, at bottom, is utterly mysterious. Of course as applied to the world, then no, nothing is mysterious: the world is as it is and not some other way. If the world were another way, it would still be the world, and not, by-itself mysterious.

But for us as human beings almost any question we ask, we can rightly ask "but why this way?" We have to conclude this is as far as we can say it just is. But it's still totally baffling.

In work with people it is often the words that are used, the stories that people carry about themselves that prevent recovery. Change the wording, the belief changes, the life changes. People can have 'magical' transformations when the language about their lives and problems is re-written. But I don't want to suggest that this is simple and that it always works. — Tom Storm

:up:

Right, and you make a good point. Language is huge, but it doesn't substitute for everything.

I will have a look at your Blue book thread. It is simply that I usually only participate in threads of books I have read already. I know that you include a link, so I may look at it, but I have 8 books which I am reading at the same time already. I want to read Wittgenstein, probably 'On Certainty', to expand my not probably at the same time as the ones which I am reading as my mind would probably explode, or implode.

I read somewhere that grammar & grimoire and spell & spelling share the same etymology. If that's the case then philosophers are like sorcerers. We shape our realities through our writings. — TaySan

:sparkle: :smirk:

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

What about the "nothingness" that preceded your thingyness? I can't imagine "no life before birth" troubles you. "Reincarnation", you say? Well then "life after death" follows, so no "nothingness" just amnesia (i.e. new body, new brain, new memories-to-be-formed); not so bad if you can believe in such fairytales. I can't get past the semantic gabberwocky of north of the north pole whenever I hear the mantra "life after death" ...

I agree with you, Jack, about human extinction; ineluctable nothingness – the radical contingency of the species, its fossils & histories, and our bloodied parade of civilizations – an echo of sighs & moans, laughter & screams fading even now and forever into oblivion. Music is made of silence, which merely interrupts with sudden soundscapes, each piece (i.e. an ephemeral world) ending like raindrops in the ocean. It's terrible knowing, feeling bone deep, that everything and everyone we ever knew and loved – and that we never knew or will never know who also knew and loved or will know and will love – will one day very soon in the cosmic scheme of things be utterly forgotten as if all of it, all of us, had never existed.

I met a traveller from an antique land,
Who said – “Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
Stand in the desert.... Near them, on the sand,
Half sunk a shattered visage lies, whose frown,
And wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command,
Tell that its sculptor well those passions read
Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things,
The hand that mocked them, and the heart that fed;
And on the pedestal, these words appear:
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal Wreck, boundless and bare
The lone and level sands stretch far away." — Ozymandias

(Emphasis is mine.)

And knowing this, how can this recurring nothingness have not already happened in the sense of being a priori – the very structure of our minds, that is, what enables us to think at all? Think what? Think the 'before there were any thinkers and after all thinkers are gone' ...
Think what? Absence (e.g. Democritean void). It's the blindspot that enables vision. Silence that inspires – calls for – music. Space that allows touch and motion. Oblivion – extinction (i.e. contingency) – that drives thinking to 'think no-more-thinking'. I forget who quipped Man built civilization in order to distract himself from the abyss; thus: 'we are for now, ergo we think' here & now – this is all there ever is.

We are – this entire world (or galaxy) is – just one candle out of countless trillions of other candles a-flicker in this boundless void, barely illuminating oblivion, which, perhaps, before winking-out at last, we may light another wick with all that we ever were.

update 4.19.21 pm – Yeah, isn't it pity?

the idea of us as lonely ghosts in the machine is fundamentally flawed. In short, I am a 'we' first and an 'I' second. — j0e

:up: Yes, Witty transformed my thinking too, along with the help of Buber & Levinas among others. I've always wanted to read a 'phenomenology of, or expressed in, the 2nd person (You)' and not being a phenomenologist I can't bear to write the study I've still not read. Why is this relevant? Because I intuit the 2nd person (you – plural & singular simultaneously) as the aufheben of 1st person plural/singular (we/I (us)) and 3rd person (s/he, it (them)) – self & non-self / more-than-self (other) – at once a fundamentally ethical address and metaphysical stance. 2nd person makes explicit as well as problematizes inclusive commons (what I call 'agency') of natality, empathy, language, discourse-dialogue-dialectics, intellect, knowledge, etc.

Because I intuit the 2nd person (you – plural & singular simultaneously) as the aufheben of 1st person plural/singular (we/I (us)) and 3rd person (s/he, it (them)) – self & non-self / more-than-self (other) – at once a fundamentally ethical address and metaphysical stance. — 180 Proof

Intensities of sublimation! The other (you) is/are a frontier, horizon, Beyond? from/of monotonous subjectivity? Striving toward (and as?) the more-than-self other? Do unknown unknowns fit here somewhere? We might be 'thrusting against the limits of language' but I like it.

Yes, Witty transformed my thinking too, along with the help of Buber & Levinas among others. — 180 Proof

I can't remember exactly which thinker to credit most. It all slowly came into focus, that I was a 'we' first and an 'I' second. I imagine that this sounds wacky or mystical when I view it as the result of critical thinking, of smashing certain inherited errors. There's no dance without the dancers, but there are no dancers without the dance. Language is (part of) the dance. The dancers come & go, preserving the dance, which is also like a flame that leaps from melting candle to melting candle. As you say, it's also ethical, and even critical thinking is essentially ethical (a 'gentle(wom)an's agreement, a respect for the autonomy and intelligence of the other, of the other in one's self even.)

the radical contingency of the species, its fossils & histories, and our bloodied parade of civilizations – an echo of sighs & moans, laughter & screams fading even now and forever into oblivion. — 180 Proof

O what music! Somehow it's even more beautiful that way.

Jack...

I feel you're coming at this in the right way. But you seem stuck in scholasticism.

You say " Endless books have been written on these subjects. However, no one seems to have come up with any clear answers, and it seems to me that they remain as unsolved mysteries".

The problems are not unsolved, but to find answers you would need to adventure beyond the university curriculum. I cannot write an essay here but if you explore the idea of neutral; metaphysical theory you'll find it solves all philosophical problems. The reason it is not taught is that it is mysticism. Here there are no 'problems of philosophy'.

If the professors studied and taught the whole of philosophy then we would not be speaking of unsolvable problems.

Trouble is that in my experience the topic is too difficult for a public forum. .

I cannot write an essay here but if you explore the idea of neutral; metaphysical theory you'll find it solves all philosophical problems. — FrancisRay

Can you provide a name/book title associated with this?

I agree that this is an extremely difficult topic for a public forum, and it does seem that so many of the topics are, but we live in extraordinary times, with most sectors of interaction being closed. This is the first public forum I have ever used and I have experienced diverse discussions people from all over the world. In many ways this has been more liberating than the studies which I did which were with most people on courses coming from similar backgrounds and little life experience.

I definitely don't wish to be 'stuck in scholasticism'. I love reading, but I don't believe that all the answers can be found in books at all. I am not sure that there is such a thing as neutral metaphysical theory. I try to get a certain point of balance but we all have inevitable biases. You say that you can't write an essay here, and I appreciate you feeling that way. However, if you write a little one on the thread, I will most certainly read it and write a comment in reply, but, of course, I can see that you may have reservations about doing so.

I definitely used to wonder about life before birth, as much as life after death. That was because one of my earliest memories was of being in a cot and of a sudden awakening, such as before this life, rather than waking up from sleep. But, maybe it was my imagination playing tricks on me in early childhood.

Perhaps, I keep an too much of an open mind, rather than being committed to any one viewpoint. I do think that I need to read some phenomenology and Wittgenstein because they seem to have such potential insights. But, sometimes, the more I read, the harder it becomes to find my own voice. I know that I am often criticised for reading too much, but it seems to be such a complex balance, juxtaposing personal ideas with those of others, especially the significant writers.

I am interested in what you have to say here about your experience, of the Eureka moment. That is because even though I am interested in your thread about esotericism, it seems a bit vague and abstract. I struggle to search for answers in esoteric thought and philosophy, but it all seems shrouded in mystery. However, I am in favour of demystification, to try to find ways of making the unknown more knowable.

If only we could find one book which would give us the answers...

I am interested in what you have to say here about your experience, of the Eureka moment. — Jack Cummins

Do you mean my realizing that the 'I' is primarily a 'we' ? As I see it, quite a few philosophers talk about this. I consider the realization the result of intense critical thinking. So it's not esoteric, since the dialectical ladder is out there for anyone to climb. It was no single book. I'm trying to sketch the spiderweb in the Blue Book thread, link the writers.

For me the dialectical path led through the most isolated thinkers. Because I was fascinated by Stirner, for example, I read Marx's critique of him in The German Ideology, which demystifies the ego-ghost.

You speak of distinguishing between the I and the we, but, perhaps many people remain isolated in the form of the 'I', feeling cut off from a sense of belonging, and pursue the questions of existence more as remote, isolated individuals.

You speak of distinguishing between the I and the we, but, perhaps many people remain isolated in the form of the 'I', feeling cut off from a sense of belonging, and pursue the questions of existence more as remote, isolated individuals. — Jack Cummins

Right. They feel isolated for various reasons (perhaps they would benefit from more friends or lovers or a better relationship with family, when possible) and also for ideological reasons. The 'ghost in the machine' idea can look like the tough-minded opposite of a weak-minded sentimentality that speaks of our profound connection. This connects to a cult of individuality that has its good side but also its absurdities. The big emotional change that's happened for me over the years is something letting go of the snowflake fantasy and realizing that what's good in me is the same thing that's good in other people. The world will be OK without me. This particular face and name are not that important and not that interesting (they matter in my personal life but not to the Conversation.)

One gets bored with the idiosyncratic self-stuff and genuinely wants to move toward what we have in common, the good stuff, as found in good philosophy, literature, music, etc. The thing to overcome (here comes the folk-psychology with a dash of Freud) is 'his majesty the baby' who wants to own the conversation, own philosophy-science-religion. Stirner wrote about the 'sacred' which is kind of X that represents that fantasy lever that individuals use to authorize their royal infantilism.

Going back a moment,I remember really fearing the first death, my own little death, because I was egoistic and thought I was loaded with unique potential. Of course in some way we all are loaded with a unique potential, but the species is not so fragile to really depend on this or that individual. IMO, half of the work in studying philosophy is emotional, a matter of the heart that becoming ready to let go of self-flattering illusions that are simultaneously self-isolating (the bitterness of an unsatisfied greed for recognition of one's 'genius' or esoteric truth that 'can't be put into words.')

As far as I can see there is a whole tension between being an individual and belonging. We live in a world where many are excluded and isolated even when they would long to be part of a larger group. We live in a very fragmented world, in which people are often seen as numbers, and are compelled rather than choose to find meaning on an individual level.

Of course, I am sure that this is so variable, but many are not embedded within communities as much as in earlier historical epochs. In this way, they are more likely to not supported in cultural systems of belief.

:up:

As far as I can see there is a whole tension between being an individual and belonging. We live in a world where many are excluded and isolated even when they would long to be part of a larger group. We live in a very fragmented world, in which people are often seen as numbers, and are compelled rather than choose to find meaning on an individual level. — Jack Cummins

Very true. Our pluralistic, individualistic age is tough. In some ways we are encouraged to obsess over ourselves, market ourselves. It's the bleak background of those beautiful moments where we actually connect. I experience the dead writers I've mentioned as friends. IMO, anyone who passionately reads the good stuff is a deeply social being, as I was, even when I hadn't yet found my place in the world (not that one is ever done doing this, but one can feel more at home than before, and one can be playful and at ease more often but never always.)

The reason it is not taught is that it is mysticism. Here there are no 'problems of philosophy'.

If the professors studied and taught the whole of philosophy then we would not be speaking of unsolvable problems. — FrancisRay

I stared a thread on this issue. IMO, we have the different (fuzzy) categories for a reason. It's not just mysticism that solves the problems of philosophy. Pain pills work too. So does a religious creed. But to be a philosopher is roughly to approach things 'rationally,' which is to take a certain ideal for granted.

That's the right way to think about these things I think. All of it, at bottom, is utterly mysterious. — Manuel

:up:

The 'totality' seems to be beyond explanation, since explanation links this to that. But there's nothing outside the Everything that we can link it to. The 'system' hovers over an abyss.