why is it the things that by nature must necessarily be the closest to us, most intimately connected to us, the things that must be us, are the hardest things to see? How is it I could be a mind that cannot know what a mind really is? — Fire Ologist
Which leads to a clear formulation of my question: why is it the things that by nature must necessarily be the closest to us, most intimately connected to us, the things that must be us, are the hardest things to see? — Fire Ologist
How is it I could be a mind that cannot know what a mind really is? — Fire Ologist
It seems to me that just as an eye does not appear within its own visual field, a hand cannot grasp itself, and willing does not will what it wills ... "mind" is necessarily transparent to itself in order to mind – attend to – nonmind (which includes, among all other ideas, also the idea of "mind"); thus, "being a mind" is functionally perspectival.How is it I could be a mind that cannot know what a mind really is? — Fire Ologist
Maybe I do not have the right tools yet. A possibility, that mind has yet to be measured and weighed. But I wonder, could it be because these things are not there – there is no individuated thing being me, in me, or in mind, that one would distinguish from the brain that is seeking something distinct? I was satisfied when I saw my eyeball seeing that there is body. Why do I still not confirm the shape of the soul such as "I' when it is I seeking this soul? — Fire Ologist
….the things that must be us, are the hardest things to see…. — Fire Ologist
It still seems impossible, or better put, an absurd possibility, for me to imagine I could prove to myself that myself is not there, but then again, I began this wondering in the first place, and I still have no idea what a “myself” actually is.
It is no wonder I know so little of the world; I can’t even see my face in a mirror, and further, I can’t see my face in a mirror even while it is appearing the mirror itself is me — Fire Ologist
...what we think of as the self, mainly comprises those things and circumstances to which we are attached and that we identify with. — Wayfarer
It seems to me that just as an eye does not appear within its own visual field, a hand cannot grasp itself, and willing does not will what it wills ... "mind" is necessarily transparent to itself in order to mind – attend to – nonmind (which includes, among all other ideas, also the idea of "mind"); thus, "being a mind" is functionally perspectival. — 180 Proof
What are you hoping to find and how does this nebulous introspection differ to smoking weed and postulating infinities? — Tom Storm
So what in particular are you looking for an answer to? — Punshhh
We as conscious thinking subjects, do not seem to operate in terms of the very natural law by which we understand the operation of all natural real things. — Mww
The brain operates according to natural law, but none of the terms of it are present in our direct, first-person, unmediated thinking. We can never understand how the self-conscious thinking subject arises, by the same means by which we understand all other natural events, so perhaps a better question is….why does it seem like there is such a thing at all? — Mww
The account for the seemingly self-conscious thinking subject ... science proper is not yet sufficiently equipped for it, which is the same as saying the scientist presently has no sufficient method for how to proceed. — Mww
All that being said, I reject that the things that must be us are the hardest to see. I rather hold the view, that for which the negation, for all practical intents and purposes, is impossible, one had best figure out how to see it, in order to get the best and most out of it. — Mww
Have you read any Wittgenstein, particularly his later work? He tried to show how the kinds of questions you’re asking result from confusions caused by how our language is grammatically structured around the subject-predicate relation. This linguistic heritage straitjackets the way we think about meaning into boxes, generalities and abstractions like assuming the mind as some kind of container, the existence of a thing as an inert property , and factual knowledge as divorced from the context of interactions in which we use that knowledge and make it relevant and intelligible. In other words, your puzzlement comes less from the way the world is than the presumptions you are tacitly relying on in posing your questions. Start by asking yourself , not what something means in itself, but what you are trying to do with it. — Joshs
This sounds a bit like "consciousness is consciousness of" which is Sartre. I always liked that. I am conscious of a cat, so the cat in a consciousness can also be called me being conscious of a cat, or just summed up as a particular moment of me, of self. — Fire Ologist
why is it the things that by nature must necessarily be the closest to us, most intimately connected to us, the things that must be us, are the hardest things to see? — Fire Ologist
What if the self is the linguistic heritage? This question is as confused as any other, but then, we are trying to communicate and only have words, our linguistic heritage, to do so. And that is where my "question" lives - only a mind can make any sense of these words at all. I would agree that maybe I don't know the language to properly ask myself "what are you?" (already this sentence is absurd) but I do not agree that because I don't know the language, I can't even conceive my question. Whether I can express it or not, something is being straight-jacketed; therefore, there is something beyond the words. I disagree that meaning is simply use. Use ties meaning to the words, but it does not tie the words back to anything else, and I don't agree that meaning is merely use.
It goes beyond philosophy in the strict sense in that it relies on religious, or theological traditions, which are adopted as a framework on which to construct one’s enquiry. — Punshhh
Philosophy is not some universal, pre-human absolute. Just as Philosophy defines everything else, it defines itself. Why should it necessarily be restricted by the walls it constructs? — ENOAH
why shouldn't philosophy explore the mystical? Does it really restrict itself to Truth? Or is Truth necessarily arrived at through reason? — ENOAH
So what in particular are you looking for an answer to? — Punshhh
Either way, it's possible that Western Philosophy "proper" (with some exceptions) only avoids these schools because of prejudice concerning connections with religion. And that, to the former's detriment.
So mind is fully there, but still I ask the question and wonder if I can see one distinct feature about "mind" that is there. And we have nothing.
There are eastern philosophies which work, but the fact that they start from the assumption of God, gods, deity, Western philosophy just doesn’t go there, or reduces it to some peculiarity of the human mind. — Punshhh
Maybe the approach could be to reflect on the concepts of import (to a given individual) from the western perspective (since same is unavoidable, like thinking in English is to me), and then, from there, find the parallels in Eastern traditions.
Yes an interesting parallel. The Western academic tradition seems to be stuck on a circle, or wheel of logic, like samsara from which it cannot escape and which is abstracted from the real world.One eg., upon my own reflections, I come across the problem of Mind and conclude, on my own, from within my western narrative, that Mind might not have any corresponding Being, or Reality, "driving", "grounding" or "behind" it, and that it might just be structured by empty signifiers. Comparing that to eastern philosophies, I find the principle of Sunyata (emptiness of Reality). While I believe that the Mahayanists might have gone too far, and that Sunyata applies only to the constructed reality of human experience, yet still, there is a workable parallel.
Yes, I would expect there to be a lineage stretching back over the millennia derived from sources further east. In a sense the Western tradition is a recent, more modern metricated system of thought based on the reductionism of Aristotle. While leaving behind the more reflective philosophies. Perhaps it is time for thinkers to walk backwards and pick up from where they left off.We are all humans, East and West, drawing upon the same nascent constructions input into all of us, and developed collectively throughout the generations. It wasn't just Schopenhaur who first incorporated the East into Western philosophy. I may not be best suited to demonstrate this, but I feel it is not unreasonable for an historian of philosophy to find what is traditionally thought of as eastern patterns weaved through western thought and vice versa, since the presocratics, and likely much earlier.
Yes, it is the curse of materialism.Your "obstacles" 1 to 3, (which I know you are exposing and not endorsing) are ways in which we "deliberately" construct barriers out of prejudice.
I was thinking more of a test within academic circles. There is no way to anchor the theory of a “spiritual realm” into philosophy. There is the theological tradition as I mentioned, but this seems to have been disregarded. Philosophy is happy to talk about the spiritual, or the divine. But it is increasingly seen as nothing more than a hypothetical, a flight of fancy. (Although I would accept that there is a creeping sense of something else to reality, but which is undefined.)1. "test" it? arguably the east has a better test, doing, i.e. yoga and meditation. If mind's conclusions are admittedly questionable (hence, phenomenology), what better test than to silence mind?
Yes, very much so. A module dedicated to being a being, absent the mind. The acceptance that a being isn’t just a mind, there are other layers, realities, experiences, more immediate, more real than thoughts.2. "physical world?" arguably sitting in meditation for the purposes of silencing the chatter and perceiving the world through the Body for a change, is exactly approaching reality through the physical world. What is more empirical than what your body tells you without interference of concepts?
Forgive my Theosophical terminology. What I am referring to is the notion that a being can become a pure still being absent the mind. When the mind is banished, the being has not been banished, the being is still present. The word “soul” has a lot of baggage, a better word might be something like Atman, the atmic, or something.3. "subjugation of mind to soul?"
Yes, they were already stuck on the wheel of mind by that point.Firstly, that is the problem I see with western metaphysics in the traditions of Plato, Descartes, Hegel etc. Moreover, Mahayana blatantly denies the "soul." The subjugation part, the so called goal to reach Satori/Kensho or Moksa, is intended to liberate you from the mundane chattering of the Subject Self. Descartes tried to do the same but got stuck in the chattering and gave privileged status to the Subject Self, I (see Heidegger's ontic, everyday vs ontological Being, which I think, he ultimately remains in the ontic everyday, but that's another discussion).
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.