In non-attachment, why would you love any particular person? — praxis
A mind that would not exists without sensory input in its development. Minds don’t just pop into existence. — praxis
But in any case, is it the senses that tell you that or do you reach that conclusion from something you've read or is it just an intuition you have? — Janus
For me there are different kinds of beauty. There is moral beauty for example. A saint would be morally beautiful. To admire something would be to love it in some sense it seems to me. — Janus
Tom Storm I think Jung is a great guide to understanding the possibilities of the human psyche. His term of 'Individuation' has something in common with 'enlightenment'. Individuation is about assimilating unconscious content with the ego to form the Self. — I like sushi
None of these things are easy to understand or practice. But it doesn't mean they're unreal. — Wayfarer
I think the idea is that it should be a living non-attachment. — Janus
What does it mean to say I am attached to a feeling as opposed to simply being aware of the feeling? If I feel love for someone, do I need to be attached to that love in order to act lovingly towards them? — Janus
I'm interested in hearing what people's views are on the notion of the enlightened individua — Tom Storm
I imagine it's a state of equanimity in which thoughts and feelings arise and are clearly seen and felt but are not indulged in. Think about pain; as long as you are embodied pain cannot definitely be avoided. But as, I think it was, Tom Storm told us in another thread recently, his father was able to switch pain off, undergo dental procedures without anaesthetic and said "It only hurts of you let it". — Janus
On the most basic level, studies show that without reward (pleasure) and punishment (pain) we really wouldn’t be motivated to do much of anything. — praxis
How is affect somehow not hedonic? — praxis
The same event can be reinforcing or aversive depending on our success or failure at anticipating it and thus making sense of it within our system of anticipations. — Joshs
in prediction-based approaches affectivity is bound up with the relationship one senses between anticipation and realization. — Joshs
If I feel love for someone, do I need to be attached to that love in order to act lovingly towards them?
— Janus
In non-attachment, why would you love any particular person? — praxis
1. This 'union of knower and known' is frequently encountered in non-dualist philosophies. — Wayfarer
Curiously perhaps, the scientific viewpoint is a depersonalised one, so that for example, my feelings and desires are no more significant than anyone else's; they are phenomena on an equal basis. Perhaps that is why the beginnings of the scientific project are known as 'The enlightenment'. Materialism is the foremost non-dualist philosophy. — unenlightened
I'm interested in what might be a Western equivalent of enlightenment - outside from Jung's somewhat syncretistic ideas.
Does anyone have comments on Nietzsche's ideas of self-overcoming? The will to power implies significant attachment however, but perhaps I am wrong.
The secular version of enlightenment seems to be a kind of emotional and aspirational minimalism. — Tom Storm
in prediction-based approaches affectivity is bound up with the relationship one senses between anticipation and realization.
— Joshs
In this case isn’t affect hedonic (relating to or considered in terms of pleasant or unpleasant interoception)? — praxis
But additionally there's a flavor of being initiated into cosmic secrets. — Tom Storm
In non-attachment, why would you love any particular person? — praxis
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.