You don't need 'examination' for that. Only surrender. — hope

Different souls or minds exist on different levels of awareness, experience, and being.

Some can surrender to a higher reality and always be and act in unity with it.

Others need to practice self-examination in order to ascertain whether and to what extent they have surrendered, until they have overcome all doubt and uncertainty.

And others practice 'self-examination' as a form of neurosis or obsessive compulsion and surrender to that instead.

My belief is that the shape of the earth approximates that of a sphere, but that in everyday life we perceive it as flat and it is so for most practical purposes.

I don't know if this counts as "alternative philosophy", but there you are.

Or maybe 'examination' of life is really just a hidden attempt to control it to alleviate your irrational doubts towards it. — hope

It may well be that in certain cases.

However, true examination is not motivated by "irrational doubts" but by the rational desire to live in harmony with a higher reality and to be your true self.

I fully respect everyone's privacy, that's not an issue for me.

However, you write books but you don't want people to know that you write books.

Then why are you telling people that you write books?

So, then what's the point telling us that you write books???

I'm not criticizing you. I actually agree with some of the things you're saying.

What have you got to hide or fear if what you're saying is true?

Come on, Hope, you told us you write books. What are they called, and where can we can get them?

Sure, a lot of it turned out to be bullshit - I never did the Transcendental Meditation training, although I was taught a similar technique elsewhere - but I was embarrassed by the ‘yogic flying’ fiasco that came out of their so-called 'University'. The first Ashram I spent time at was later exposed as one of the worst instances of child abuse in the Australian Royal Commission into that sorry history. So I’m very well aware of the scams, the failures, the fake gurus. But nevertheless, I learned something through that encounter which I wouldn’t have learned otherwise. — Wayfarer

When I first went to India to look into all those claims of special knowledge (not very long ago actually) the first thing I instinctively noticed was how good Indians were at reading Westerners' every single thought and feeling, by watching their body language, facial expression, the way they dressed, moved, talked, everything. So I decided to turn it around and watch them instead. It didn't take me long to discover that almost without exception they were very clever actors who knew how to put on a show and how to answer (or not) questions in a way that suggested "superior" or "hidden" knowledge, fully aware that this was what Westerners expected.

To my surprise, even supposedly seasoned foreigners like Australians and Israelis got easily taken for a ride .... :smile:

But I agree that genuine spiritual teachers, though few and far between, do exist. And I continue to hold traditional texts like Shankaracharya's Brahmasutra Bhashya and the Bhagavad Gita in high regard. They are in no way inferior to Plato or Plotinus.

Being that this is a philosophy forum maybe we should try a little philosophical theism and dispense with preconditions or presumptions which cause us profound cognitive dissonance regarding science and experience. — prothero

It may well be a philosophy forum but we still use words in the sense they are normally understood - unless otherwise stated.

Plus, by defining God as "benevolent" the OP seems to be using conventional terminology.

How can there be anxiety if we trust every blade of grass is exactly positioned for its purpose? — Hanover

Well, I've never been a particularly anxious sort of person, to be quite honest. But I can imagine that trust can have a soothing effect on those who are.

Right. But I thought it was physics? And it's supposed to be @hope's own theory.

Bitachon. Look it up. — Hanover

Bitachon cures anxiety?

As the great scholar Clint Eastwood once put it, a man needs to know his limitations. — Valentinus

But what if consciousness has no limitations?

Can I bet to the "maybe not" case? — dimosthenis9

You can indeed. I might do that myself.

This post gave me anxiety — Daniel

Maybe you should try the books then. Or maybe not ....

I don't read books, I write them for others to read. — hope

And which books are those, if I may ask?

Then you don't need this post. — hope

That's OK then.

Apparently somewhere in Leviticus — Joshs

But apparently it's @hope's own theory.

You're anxieties will disappear by learning how to apply it. — hope

But what happens if you have no anxieties or don't act on them?

Basically stop doubting and hating yourself, and start accepting and loving yourself, and your anxiety will be gone. You will then be calm instead of vibrating : — hope

Well, all my anxieties have disappeared just by reading that. :wink:

And, I'm not sure if this is good or bad, but I've definitely stopped vibrating.

BTW, would it be possible to know where you've read all this stuff?

That is not the question. The questioning presupposes goodwill. — SolarWind

You could be right. However, the question is not about any goodwill but about God's goodwill.

And the main attribute of God seems to be that he is omnipotent or powerful:

God is usually conceived of as being omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent and omnibenevolent as well as having an eternal and necessary existence.

God – Wikipedia

Conceptions of maximal greatness differ but theists believe that a maximally great reality must be a maximally great person or God. Theists largely agree that a maximally great person would be omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient, and all good.

Concepts of God – SEP

God a. A superhuman person regarded as having power over nature and human fortunes

– Oxford English Dictionary

Based on what reasoning should we conclude that the presence of those things is evidence that God (if he exists) is not benevolent? — baker

The way I see it, if God exists and is omnipotent, then I think he can do as he pleases. He is under no obligation to submit his actions or the motives of his actions to human scrutiny and judgment.

Otherwise, he would become subordinate to the human mind which is absurd. Either he is God or he isn't.

The real power of the conservative party is not in their economic growth, but in their superior alignment to the desires of the natural human being within us all. — hope

I think @Oppyfan is currently on vacation. But I tend to agree with your statement.

Others have been quite happy with the EU. One really shouldn't forget this as one reads or hears these specific narratives of just how rotten the EU is. — ssu

Well, if you are a Finnish farmer living on EU subsidies then I suppose you would take a pro-EU stance.

But I think a more objective approach is preferable if we want to get to the bottom of it. In any case, when we analyze something it is important to take all the known facts into consideration, not cherry-pick stuff that we like and ignore stuff that we don’t.

The EU did not start as the “EEC”, it started as the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) established in 1951 through the Treaty of Paris.

As shown by its name, the project was about coal and steel. Coal and steel were the basis of European industry and, by extension, of European economy. Europe’s economy depended on coal and iron mines and steel plants that processed the coal and the iron ore.

The main continental countries that produced coal, iron, and steel were Germany, France, and the Benelux countries Belgium, Holland, and Luxembourg, to which they added Italy.

The Italians and the Germans had been allies during the war. The industries of the Benelux countries were interlinked with that of Germany. But the French and the Germans were long-time enemies, so why would France want to merge its economy with that of Germany?

Moreover, Germany was divided into East and West, with the Eastern half under Russian control and the Western half under US control.

The truth of the matter is that European unification was a precondition of US aid.

Why would America invest 13 billion dollars in Europe in addition to more billions in loans? Obviously, the Americans wanted Europe as a market for American goods and wanted to exert as much influence on European economy, finance, and politics as possible.

The European Recovery Program (Marshall Plan) was devised, promoted and implemented by elements linked to Rockefeller interests operating within the US State Department.

The Rockefellers’ Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) became official part of the State Department in the early 1940’s and by the time Truman became president in 1945 it was literally making America’s foreign policy. The CFR developed the idea of the “reconstruction of Western Europe” in 1946, this was announced in 1947 by State Secretary George Marshall and it was passed by Congress in 1948 as the European Reconstruction Program (ERP) a.k.a. “Marshall Plan”.

To promote their plan, the Rockefellers launched a massive propaganda operation to overcome public opposition. This was spearheaded by the Committee for the Marshall Plan, chaired by Henry Stimson, a Rockefeller lawyer who had ran the US War Department during the war, and consisted of other Rockefeller lawyers, directors of the Rockefellers’ CFR, the chairman of the Rockefellers’ Chase National Bank, and was funded by John D Rockefeller and his business associates.

NONPARTISAN UNIT HEADED BY STIMSON TO BACK EUROPE AID - New York Times

All the agencies that operated the Plan and through which money was funnelled to fund pro-unification organizations in Europe were run by Rockefeller people.

The whole Marshal Plan and associated European unification were a Rockefeller project.

This is why the Russians rejected the Plan as “economic imperialism”. The British took the money but refused to join the ECSC and its successor EEC on the grounds that it was unacceptable for the UK economy to be “handed over to an authority that is utterly undemocratic and is responsible to nobody”.

Germany was run by US military governor John McCloy, a Rockefeller lawyer and trustee of the Rockefeller Foundation, who was in charge of the Economic Cooperation Administration (through which the Marshall Plan was operated) in Germany, and who by his own admission, had “the powers of a dictator”.

The French were fighting a losing war in Indochina and aside from Marshall funds and loans, they depended on US military and financial assistance in their war and had no choice but to comply.

So I think that the whole project was far from being a democratic enterprise. It was more like US monopolistic capitalism working hand-in-hand with Europe’s own big bankers and industrialists and their political collaborators for their own ends.

What actually happened on the ground is that US goods and services were acquired by European countries with American taxpayers’ money from the corporations that had promoted the plan, and that most of Marshall Plan business went through banks controlled by the Rockefellers and their associates, viz., Chase National, J P Morgan, and Bankers Trust.

Additionally, by the 1960’s American corporations in Europe dominated the market in petroleum, farm machinery, telecommunications equipment, and other key sectors. Then came the oil crisis of the early 1970’s, also largely engineered by the Rockefellers, who used it to expand their global oil and banking empire; the Rockefeller-instigated East-West rapprochement; Rockefeller-spearheaded credit, investment, and business with China that facilitated China’s rise to major economic power, etc. ....

I think a lot of philosophy of mind has been influenced by that - talk of ‘consciousness’ always seems to me to carry an echo of the Sanskrit ‘citta’. Also enactivism and the ‘embodied cognition’ movement has some Eastern influences. All part of life’s rich tapestry. — Wayfarer

Some influence is entirely conceivable. But I think it is in order to bear in mind a couple of things.

Business in India used to be done by the commercial class or caste (though even sannyasi orders were known to be engaged in commercial activities). But now everyone is into it and even yoga isn’t what it used to be. It has become a multi-billion dollar business even in India.

The other thing is that a lot of “yoga” is just a Western fantasy. The Indians will know exactly what kind of “customer” you are and will sell you anything you want. If they don’t have it, they will find, make or invent it for you on the spot.

In a way, it may be said that whilst India has “spiritualized” the West, the West has modernized, westernized, commercialized, and "despiritualized" India.

The scholars of modern yoga Mark Singleton and Ellen Goldberg comment that the globalisation of yoga has radically changed the nature and role of the guru. The medieval relationship between guru and shishya was one-to-one, well-understood in traditional Hindu society, based on trust developed over many years of instruction. The modern situation may bring the celebrity yoga teacher into close contact with strangers, anywhere in the world, in "milieus where the religious affiliations, function, status, and role of the guru may not be well understood" …

And these people make more money in leading one retreat than you do in a year. Or ten years.
Not negligible. — baker

Some of them, yes.

So God created mostly scrap?? In his infinite goodness and wisdom, he chose that most of his creation should go to waste?? — baker

1. God can do as he pleases.

2. Even scrap may serve a good purpose.

3. There is always the possibility of reincarnation.

But as ↪Apollodorus points out repeatedely, acknowledgement of doubt and uncertainty can lead to a schizoaffective disorder. — baker

Nope, Apollodorus does not say that "acknowledgement of doubt and uncertainty can lead to schizoaffective disorder". It is not the acknowledgment but giving in to doubt and uncertainty, especially when coupled with Straussian esotericism, that can open the trapdoor leading to schizoaffective or delusional disorder. Two totally different things IMO.

The problem is that those external points of reference are often hostile to us, and we have to find a way to rely on and trust people who, at the very least, don't care if we live or die. — baker

Sure. This is what we have intelligence, wisdom, and discernment for.

The original claim was that American women tend to be more aggressive than other women.
Also, where I come from, being loud is generally considered aggressive. — baker

I get that. However, I believe that this in itself is an unwarranted generalization.

When I said that personally I tend to hear female voices over male ones I meant this only in the sense that my brain notices or registers them NOT that I find them "aggressive" or in any way "annoying".

Different people see things differently. To me, European women do not sound aggressive at all. Some may be loud, e.g., Italian and Spanish women, and others may be more softly-spoken, e.g., French, English, Irish.

Outside Europe, I would say that Indian women are similar to Europeans; Japanese women sound "aggressive" (due to language and the way sounds are articulated) without being aggressive; Chinese women sound aggressive and can be aggressive (due to more aggressive culture than the Japanese); Arab women sound aggressive and are aggressive (due to both language and culture), etc.

Having said that, it depends on a wide range of factors such as culture, language, class, education, upbringing, individual character and personality, situation, etc.

In any event, I put Americans in the same category as Europeans. They may be louder than some Europeans, but I fail to see how this translates as "aggressive". Being loud does not mean that they are going to start a fight or attack you, does it?

Unless you do something to upset them, in which case you can't really complain that they are aggressive toward you .... :smile:

Zen and other forms of Buddhism, Advaita and various yogic disciplines really answer a need which the 'scientism' of mainstream culture, and the dogmatism of the mainstream churches cannot. — Wayfarer

I agree that the need is there. However, yogic disciplines include yama, niyama, asana, pranayama, pratyahara, dharana, dhyana, samadhi (and others), that take years to learn and practice. How many Westerners are there that actually practice or even understand all of them?

And the reality is that there are more fake “gurus” than genuine ones and the same applies to “students” of yoga who go on a “yoga retreat” somewhere for a few months to one year and come back with a “certificate” or "diploma" and with the expectation of being treated as “yoga teachers”.

Unfortunately, in many cases (though by no means all), it becomes a pseudo-spirituality (or ersatz religion) that is just a form of materialism by another name.

As regards the idea of the Forms, it seems to me that most analytic and 20th C philosophy doesn't 'get it'. — Wayfarer

Correct. Some fail to understand the Forms - and Plato himself - because they make no effort to do so. Or for some psychological reasons.

The fact is that transcendence and immanence in Plato are not mutually exclusive. The Forms are present in their instances in the same way universals are present in particulars. They are simultaneously transcendent to and immanent in the particulars.

By definition, the universal that is present in many particulars is (1) immanent in the particulars and (2) other than each and all of them, and therefore transcendent to them.

A colored object is apprehended by the eye but color itself is apprehended by the mind. The universal “color” is not a figment of imagination or mere concept, it is a real, intelligible thing. The Form cannot be merely “one-over-many”, it also is “one-in-the-many”.

The misunderstanding arises from erroneously thinking of the Forms in spatial terms. But, clearly, the Forms being incorporeal are not separated from their instances by some dividing line that exists somewhere in space. The Forms are “other than” the sensibles but not “spatially separated” from them.

This is why Socrates compares the Good with the Sun (or Sun God) who is immanent in the visible world. And why, with training, the Forms can be grasped by the soul in extrasensory perception.

Most people have not been shown, or told, about quantum mechanics, number theory, or diesel engine repair either. That doesn't mean they are mysterious. — T Clark

However, if most people do not know about quantum mechanics or neuroscience, then they do not know about it. And what they do not know about is unknown to them.

I would remove "probably" above, agree with the idea that the "guessing" lies with the explaining, but then to say "some of it" seems to be subjective cancels the progress made in the statement. — Constance

OK. So the pain and, presumably, the sharp glass are real but they are not "out there" but "in here", where the perception of pain, and the mental analysis of it, are also located.

But is the perceiving entity identical with the brain? And is it single or multiple?

The possibility of doubt is always there until we have reached certainty.

And yes, phronesis is practical wisdom. And so is sophia. Ancient philosophy is, by definition, a practical endeavor. This tends to get overlooked in modern culture.

Well, Plato's philosophy is a way of life. It is about the cultivation of virtues; of "doing was is beneficial to the soul" as opposed to being too concerned with material things; of pursuing what is true, beautiful, and good; of doing what is good and just for yourself and others; and generally attaining happiness and wisdom.

In other words, much more than mere intellectual pursuit.

However, in general, it would be difficult to follow too many different paths at the same time, for the simple reason that each path requires a certain amount of dedication, time, intelligence, and energy.

Were this not the case, people would make better and faster progress the more paths they followed. Yet this does not seem to be so.

We may compare it with learning a foreign language. Would we learn faster by focusing on a single language, or by learning a few other languages at the same time?

In other words, the pick-and-mix mentality prevalent in modern society and particularly in the West may not ultimately produce the desired result. On the contrary, it may turn into a habit that leaves us forever dissatisfied and always on the search for something new.

The doubt may arise as to whether we are "missing" something if we do not constantly try this or that method or path and that doubt may ultimately prove to be a false friend.

The very fact that people turn to non-Western traditions because they have no knowledge of what Western philosophy and spirituality have to offer suggests that they are acting out of ignorance. And this may not be a good start to begin with.

I agree we are not isolated individuals; we always live and think within a received cultural matrix. — Janus

Not only that, but even in terms of finding our own way toward the attainment of wisdom, we cannot do it in complete isolation but need at least from time to time to turn to external points of reference in order to verify that what we have found or are in the process of finding is indeed wisdom and not something else.

If there is suspicion and bad relations, nothing but empty talk will happen. — ssu

That depends. Just because Finland and Sweden were keen to join, it doesn't mean it applies to all European countries.

The idea of a united Europe comes from the 1947 European Recovery Plan (ERP) a.k.a. Marshall Plan according to which European states that wanted US aid to reconstruct their countries after the war had to commit themselves to economic cooperation leading to political union.

Of course, this was in the interest of US business as they needed a Europe with a strong economy to serve as a market for US goods and give the US economy a boost.

The Germans, for example, were not even asked as they were under Allied occupation. They were ordered to team up with France, Italy, and the Benelux countries and get on with it.

The British were never very happy about joining and only did so under pressure and after a massive propaganda campaign by pro-EU groups. And, of course, with the 2016 referendum, they decided to get out. Others may follow the British example, China may take over Europe's economy, etc. It isn't quite as simple as you think.

There's your problem: "out there" vs "in here". — Banno

So, are we "out there", or "in here"?

Most of what we know about everything we know because we've been told or shown by others. — T Clark

I'm not entirely sure about "shown". Personally, I don't recall being shown or even told how the brain produces sensory cognition, for example. And I think it would be safe to surmise that the same is true of most people.

paths may cross another and even more so as they approach the top of the mountain — Janus

Yes, they might even converge, becoming one path.

What if one finds one's own path, avoiding the beaten tracks. — Janus

Entirely possible. But it would be still one path.

And what if one goes back down the mountain and then climbs again? — Janus

One goes up again by the same or a different one path.

Or what if each culture has it own unique mountain to climb? — Janus

The same one-path method will apply. :smile:

I see the arts and free-thinking philosophy as alternative "ways" to following any of the "external authorities". What you say may be true for some, but not all, in my opinion. I mean how could we possibly justify a belief that we can speak for all anyway? — Janus

I never said to "follow external authorities" in the sense of entering into some form of master-disciple relationship, only to refer to them as a general standard. We do that anyway by learning from parents, teachers, experts, etc.

The artist or free-thinking philosopher does not invent his or her own reality, method or technique. They learn from others and remain in contact with others of their kind and with the general public.

In other words, yes, we are artists or free-thinkers, but we don't operate in isolation, we keep our feet on the ground and stay in touch with reality including with people that can give us advice on matters of importance.

Whether or not any of us feels the need to subordinate themselves to an external authority is of course a personal choice and in some cases may not even be necessary, as you say.