it is impossible for life to continue after death? — Philosophim

By definition. Death is the end of living. There should be no debate.

Those who cling to the possibility, aren't thinking about life. Whether consciously or not, they are thinking that "consciousness" might continue. And not some idea of consciousness which we might share with the rest of the planet,* but the Subjective mind, and really just the Subject that Mind intermittently constructs and projects.

But not only is that impossible because that process doesn't work without the fleshy infrastructure. But that process is empty of what they think it holds while it's functioning: feelings. The body supplies that. So if words survive after the death of the individual without need of the body, then Ok. That's what we generally call history. You die and we still talk about you. But without the body's feelings, you won't "enjoy" the survival. So "you" will quickly drop away, having no reference to reality, and all that is left is history.


*e.g., an aware-ing of living and its sensations (including sense of inner images), drives (including for us bondings), movements and feelings. Maybe one could argue this organic consciousness pervades nature, is nature, and thus, yah, in that sense there is life Neverending, just moving. But that's not what they want. Is it?

Husserl would ask you not to use the term "organic aware-ing" simply because something being organic refers us to the naturalism that one has to suspend in the reduction. — Constance

Understood. My observation is that, while thinking that the phenomenological reduction ought, also, to bracket Nature, H did not take the phenomenological reduction far enough. It is all "modes" of Mind, including the ego, and all "modes" of the ego, including a so called transcendental ego, which ought to be bracketed so that the practitioner arrives finally at the aware-ing body, not as yet another "mode" of human being for the ego to contemplate or experience, but at being: just being.

Whether or not that aforementioned interpretation of H is even possible to execute is an open question. But I do think, notwithstanding H's language, that such being is what he was truly after. Like everyone from Plato to Descaryes, to Heidegger, he stopped just short of transcending Mind, because of attachment to ego.

the "qualitative movement" of Kierkegaard's away from naturalistic thinking. — Constance

Isn't SK's infinite resignation, ultimately acceptance that ego and its attachments are not the ulrimate; that ego has no means of grasping the ultimate; and, his leap and teleological suspensions, like N, H, H and S to follow, prescribed methods to "transcend" that ultimately incapable ego, for [a more authentic way of] being [one with God (for SK) or Truth (TE for H1, Dasein for H2, Good faith for S)? Yes, I am over generalizing their processes and methods. But even if unwittingly, they are all recognizing human perception is mediated, desire constructed; we need a means to return to unmediated sensation and organic drives?

But we are not
to think of Dasein as a conscious subject — Constance

. Right. Because a conscious subject is still Mind and its mistaken being, the ego. But real being is not. Yet, H2 goes on to describe some complex construction more burdened by ego and its constructions than what preceded him. This I submi

4Heidegger,
however, warns explicitly against thinking ofDasein as a Husserlian
meaning-giving transcendental subjec — Constance

And so H2 recognized the "problem" H1 encounters when he imbues the ego with a residual reality after shaving off most of its Fiction by way of the brilliant Transcendental Phenomenology. H2 acts as if he hasn't done the same. But as long as Dasein has "qualities" we can "know" it is "away from" Truth and Reality.

We ARE this institutional interface in the world, and General Motors and ham and eggs for breakfast is part of the conditions of our "being there" and thus IN a constitutive analysis of our existence. I think of Hirsch's concept of cultural literacy, which conservatives love so much as it curtails cultural acceptance down to a finite body of identity features that belong to us-as-a-culture or a race, is what Heidegger had in mind when he described human dasein, and Haugeland was right about this — Constance

I should be reiterating this incessantly, but especially now. I did read Being and Time, once, slowly. A wealth of tools it added to my mind's locus in History. But I am so far from being able to understand him, that I should just re-read and reserve comment.

However, Heidegger's seems an excellent "ology" of how [the constructions and projections of] Mind and its autonomous processes function. And that both on the local level of individual minds (psychology) and universal mind, history or culture (sociology). Yes, he is more ontological in approach but he's right, a primordial ontology cannot be made, because, being pri.ordial, it pre-exists both maker and making. So his is a restructuring for the purposes of projection into the world, of the deepest structures of Signifiers and their dynamics and there function. But they are still signifiers about signifiers. Good as it is.

take Husserl's reduction more seriously, I say, down to the wire where language ceases to be in control at all in the job of encompassing what lies before one as a perceiving agency. — Constance

Where language ceases, and yet he clings to a very feature of language, the Subject, then purports it to be outside of language. I say he really means the aware-ing our body has of its sensations, drives, bonding, and movements, and tge feelings associated with each unbound by language. That being is necessarily no ego, no lingering objects, no relationship thereto qua objects; transcendental or otherwise.

I am grateful that you already forgive my misuse of terms which is beyond the understandably (pedantic?) orthodox approach, and even places you at potential ridicule for being open. So I apologize for persistently responding not with total agreement but rather agreement with modifications. Believe me, I am being highly moved by your input. I hope that provides some gratification for your honorable efforts.

Please feel free to move on, although I welcome your further input.

Meaning at least read something firsthand they have done before approaching them through secondary sources. — I like sushi

Not only do you and I agree. But I remembered that Husserl prescribes same. Duh. What is a phenomenological (Husserlian) approach to Husserl, if not one which starts from scratch?

"I have thereby chosen to begin in absolute
poverty, with an absolute lack of knowledge." ---Husserl's intro to Cartesian Mediatations

I agree with you. The "of" is necessarily not a "content" (of) the "pure" mystical "event." The "of" is tacked on immediately after the event; for some, so immediately that the "pure" event is undetected/unrecognized.

Understood. Interesting and helpful. I've tried others of the basics without the assistance of a scholarly explanation and know exactly what you mean. I have to re-read pages, and then go back, and still only get an idea at best. I'm slowly making my way through Cartesian Meditations, sparked by the discussion here. Where does that work place? Would you say I'm especially ill advised to read that without a scholarly hand? I can see why you would say so.

How about first on my own, allow myself to explore parallels that might be buried by both the author and his disciples/critics, deliberately or neglegently, then see what the experts say, and, read again?

Don't misread me. I recognize the futility of embarking down the wrong path. That's probably what you're warning against. And of claiming to speak for Husserl without having a clue. I don't say this enough because it will sound inauthentic, but under my breath almost every utterance is prefaced with, "I stand to be corrected, but...". It's just easier and faster to text as if you know. Doesn't that apply to everyone in varying degrees?

In fairness to conventional logic, for me, that Gettier problem doesn't necessarily sway me. If a misreading of Husserl, nonetheless advances me to a reasonably justified belief, a temporary settlement in what is going to be a perpetual pursuit anyway, it's not the end of the world.

Thank you. I appreciate the information and do recognize that you are correct and I am being reckless.

I think in many ways a philosopher is somewhat of a mystic, wouldn't you say? — Outlander

simplistically, they seem the opposite ends of a telescope or like complementary photo negatives of one another. — 180 Proof

I do agree with both of you and see no prohibitive contradiction.

In some instances it's the opposite of what they/one might think.

The mediocre philosopher may think he is applying reason to get at the Truth; but is only digging herself deeper into a "world of" language, using language as both it's instruments and judge.

The mediocre mystic might think they are uniting themselves with God or the Divine; but are really silencing the cacophony and grounding themselves in the epitome of what we might see as boredom; meaningless matter, the organic being.

Yet if any vocation or discipline can access true being for the rest of its the philosopher and the mystic, "complimentary photo negatives."

and could easily make no sense to somebody. — Fire Ologist

Hah. You are spot on. Both, "could easily make no sense" to some; and how you happened to have read it.

No hurry.

Edit:
Can I just share this thought having emerged from Cartesian...so far. I'm not half done. It's short but I'm an extremely patient reader. Impatient writer. Says something about my own loud mouth ego.
Anyway, take a year to reply, but so you know where I'm wandering...

Here's the thought:
H's TransEgo is not a return to organic aware-ing or conscious living (I think, though expressed in different terms, that's what he thinks he's providing a method to reach), but rather, TransEgo is an experience mediated by mind. Why? Because ego--no matter how polished up-- is still assumed the experiencer. Organic aware-ing has no agent. It is aware-ing. Not I am aware-ing; and not I am aware-ing in the third person. Rather, real organic consciousness or being is the activity of present aware-ing. Not, some imagined agent doing the aware-ing.

Whithout these things, a mystic can be a mystic, but not a Roman Catholic mystic. In this situation he cannot, as you said,

say the same thing about the mystical as a non-theistic Taoist
— Fire Ologist — Angelo Cannata

I see your point as valid...but dig a bit deeper and maybe makes a valid point which need not be limited to the theoretical.

A Catholic Mystic in contemplative prayer, properly practiced and a proper practice of Jnana Yoga or Zazen, may yield the same aware-ing. It is only after the fact that most (but not necessarily, and not necessarily all) practitioners allow the Narratives of their own locus in History to fill the "void" of that experience with constructs.

Thus, if we are referring to real mysticism, the resulting effect on the organic being is the same for all: mind becomes finally (but briefly) yoked to reality/the body. It is only upon re-entry into the constructed atmosphere that variations start to project.

Mysticism according to Bernard McGinn concerns itself with "the preparation for, the consciousness of, and the effect of a direct and transformative presence of God." — Dermot Griffin

Mystical union is experienced via a recognition of the continual awareness of the presence of God in the here and now. — Dermot Griffin

I truly believe that genuine mysticism is a middle ground between rationalism and religion. — Dermot Griffin

Does it have to be a awareness of "God"? I think not. If (as you refer to Watts) Zen, Advait Vedanta, and Daoism can be thought of as (having) Mystical (branches), then it is not God, as commonly thought of (even by Mystics) in the West. But rather an "experience" of either Oneness with all, or Emancipation from the mundane, or "knowledge" of ultimate reality, or any combination of these, and more.

For me, so called mystic practices (I don't like "mysticism" as a name--it implies other than what it really means) may (but more often may not) turn one's aware-ing away from the constructions and projections of the mundane, and point one to the ultimate truth of their being; which, sure, one may choose to see as sacred or god; but I choose to see as Truth. That is a Truth from which all of the usual constructions and projections have been "cleared away." Moreover, for me, this experience does neither last, nor permanently alter the successful practitioner. The constructions and projections flood in as soon as the mystical practice ceases.

Why do it? The successful practitioner gets a glimpse into reality, can judge all mundane experience accordingly, which is astronomically further than the rest of us stuck only in the constructions and projections.

From my brief exploration so far (Cartesian...) Husserl rests in the same place as Descartes: not far enough. Both are happy to assume that because the ego is the last trace back (reduction) in knowledge, that in ego appearance is present (I get the sense, like being).

But the step further to which I have found History has brought us, is that all appearance (phenomenal) is fleeting, including the ego; not present, not that which we can be certain of as ontologically ultimately real, not that place upon which we hang our hats, but just another appearance, only seemingly special because of its consistency etc. (Brief read of Being and Time shows a deeper complexity...but just of deeper reconstruction kf the structures of mind; appearance reconstructing appearance; not an understanding of the simple truth. Yes, everything I write or think is the same. And you, etc.)

What Husserl was really after, and reached very far, far enough to get us here, was the being of this organism which we identify in the world of appearance as human (let alone, as image of God), and thus far our ignorance (arrogance?) has blinded us from the simple truth. The being of this organism is this organism being. Not in the appearances cast by the images, specially evolved and structured, in its memory, forming a system called Mind, tapped directly into the animal's feelings, senses, drives, movements.

But there is no escaping appearance. I am not a believer of any religious dogma, but, this attachment to the images appearing in our inner imaging sense is our original sin. We are banished from Nature and destined to construct and project knowledge--good and evil, this and that.

From Husserl, and through Freud, and, Derrida, etc, etc,(I'm not going to list the thousands of thinkers) we can leap away from attachment to all appearance, even from I, my so called self; and through philosopy--not the essence of religion with its precarious myth and ritual--and at least "knowingly" carry on the business of the phenomenal (and noumenal; both Mind), at least cognizant of "really" (whatever that means in a world without "meaning") being an animal being, even if obstructed from being aware-ing of it in its presence.

But I'm pointing out that it might be easy to say that, but it's very rare to actually see it. — Wayfarer

Agreed,

I came to realise that it's not straightforward nor obvious in the least. — Wayfarer

vehemently.

but that it's strongly associated with samadhi, states of trance and metabolic suspension which enables yogis to maintain stillness of extended periods of time. — Wayfarer

Are you suggesting (I'm not taking issue) that The explanation for samadhi as expressed in Vedanta etc, is the physiological thus inducing, say, an "illusion" of unity? Or just that this extremely rare experience of unity is organic based (as in metabolic suspension etc)?

It may be that those with a more mystical leaning find it makes sense than those with a more theoretical approach. — Jack Cummins

If I may hazard a guess, the so called East (and the farther east you get the more this applied) "did" there philosophy, rather than keeping it in their "heads". While the Brahmins and rest of India created a wealth of theoretical work, they also had Jnana Yoga and the other Yogas. Then by the time Buddhism reaches China, it's stripped of most of the theoretical--iconaclastically--
and the focus is on Zazen, tge exercise of sitting.

Maybe there is something in that which the West, having ignored (in Philosophy, to date), has not "seen." I.e., for instance (and now I'm being almost recklessly hypothetical) that the human organism can by a physical exercise of the body sitting in meditation, come to "see" with its organic senses, released very briefly from Mind's constructions, that all in Nature (what we call the Universe) is One. A thing that cannot be arrived at in theoretical reflection where difference, logic, cause, effect, are necessary mechanisms. How can one come to know all is one? One must only be that reality. Perhaps, though very vaguely, meditation has been a gift to the Eastern thinkers.

Great question. I am not fully confident in the precise definition of 'Non-duality'. But if it is like monism in regard to ultimate reality being One, isn't difference required to have "theism vs atheism" to begin with?

In other words, in non-duality, as Im reading it, there is ultimately neither atheism nor theism, all of reality is One (if non-dualism is like monism).

In that sense, maybe it bridges the gap by "telling" both theism, and atheism (and everything in between) that they're ultimately all wrong. Ultimately, it (metaphysically, literally and poetically) makes no difference.

Well, not assigned, but appearing historically and producing signification. — Constance

Yes

I would argue that it is the assumption of inside/outside talk that makes the very barrier in question a problem. — Constance

Quite possibly, I'm digging up the dirt to clear the way but am jumping right into the very hole I'm digging. A thing always cognizant of, and yet being pushed back to make room for hypothesizing.

But I know, you're saying the "dirt" is part and parcel of the "way." That it neither can, nor need be cleared.

But if that leaves the Subject in tact...

Much to consider. A very interesting thread which you are managing so well. Thanks

religion consists in 'metaphysics expressed through symbolic myths' (e.g. "Platonism of the masses" according to Nietzsche).. — 180 Proof

Again, generally I agree with you.

But I'm focused on an essence of religion which is a doing of metaphysics, beyond discourse. To do so with a goal in mind. It might be you persuade me that it is not possible to achieve that goal; that the goal for something like Husserl's transcendental phenomenology is not possible. But I don't think it's fair to insist religion in totality (let alone at its essence) is flawed metaphysics just because (and I agree) tge vast majority of its practice has mutated into flawed metaphysics.

origins of religion, would that be relevant here? — I like sushi

This overall thread? Not for me to say, I don't object; but I see that as an anthropological pursuit; one shared by at least one excellent representative of same on this thread.

As for our very specific exchange, for what it may be worth, I'll try once more and hopefully briefly. Though, to explain it well, would require pages; and I cannot refer you to a source, the information I'm providing comes from hundreds of sources, if not countless.

By "essence" of religion, what structures my thinking has led me to this: religion is a mechanism by which we might, at least, "recognize" that the ego is secondary; at best, turn away from ego, if only for a glimpse of the being emancipated from a world of constructions; the ego/Subject/I among such constructions.

As an aside which will not be explained for the sake of space here, Husserl went far but at the end remained as confused as the rest of his Western Age and identified the "goal" of his exercise as the (transcendental) Subject. It is not. His method seems sound, but the goal is no different than that of this essence of religion: a glimpse into our (you won't like this) "true consciousness," reduced from all constructions.

Though personally, I follow neither the methodology of Transcendental Phenomenology (which was very recently patiently (re)introduced to me by none other than the OP) nor any institutionalized method. The point nonetheless applies to me. I can benefit from the mechanism of religion applied in accordance with its essence, to discover my true nature(s). One, not real, ultimately immaterial in all senses of the word, a fleeting empty system of images to which my true consciousness, the only real nature, has been "attached." And that attachment is our condition and tge condition of our unique suffering. Religion frees us from the attachment, though we remain.

How do I know religion does this? Where in religion is this essence found? Briefly three examples but one could provide pages, and I'm simplifying and paraphrasing
Jesus--love god with all your might love your neighbor as yourself; that sums up the scriptures--read abandon ego
Vedanta--Moksa is freedom from ego
Zazen--a glimpse into true nature/no mind

Suffering from attachment N and S wrong

Sorry, no. I agree with you. It is a useful pacifier.

I'm just saying religion at essence is more

Without at least some spirituality that manages to transcend the nihilism of rationality, the rationalist cannot compete in the cutthroat environment of biological life — Tarskian

Good enough. But why is the most we can credit religion with is its opioid effect; to sedate us in the face of our inevitable suffering.

In its essence, like philosophy, religion is metaphysics first. Its goal is to answer the same big questions. I do not think any one serious about truth, is being "reasonable" by wilfully blinding themselves to the potential light which this essence may shed, in spite of the layers and layers of BS it may be burried under.

And anyway, as for pacifier, the same can be said about philosophical attempts to alleviate human suffering, from will to power, to communism, to transcendental subjectivity, to living in good faith. None of these approaches are apodictic. Not unlike mystical hypotheses, they're genuine attempts at addressing our condition.

Apologies. You're right.

Do you reject religion and mysticism because they do not adhere strictly to reason?

If not that, then why do you reject religious or mystical "contributions" about consciousness outright (which is what you seem to be saying about the former, while relegating the latter to a pacifier, which I read as a useful fiction)?

If so, then why do you think these (religion/mysticism) cannot be sources about consciousness? What is it about reason (assuming that is where you place your trust) that makes it the only path to understanding consciousness?

What if the best way to "access" consciousness is not the understanding but, like hunger and arousal, by "feeling-doing-being"? What if mysticism--admittedly, some hypothetical particular form--provided the methodology for such access? Would you deny it because it takes a path other than reason?

While I'm not denying the usefulness of reason, is it not possible that on some matters, reason can only go so far before it reaches a bridge which reason cannot cross?ĺ guess, I was suggesting--poorly--that there might be "truths" notwithstanding all of the self serving myth, ritual and dogma. It would be an absurd irony if our strict adherence to reason, rather like a dogma, forever barred us from making headway on the very topic which continues to baffle us.

Since we seem to have gone very far with reason--across the universe and down to subparticles--why is it we cannot understand consciousness? Is it possible that the latter requires some alternative methods of pursuit?

When you or Joshs talk about guilt in this way it is much the same as claiming that a tool such as a knife is inherently evil, and imputing bad motives to everyone who uses knives. — Leontiskos

Guilt serves a function. Sometimes it triggers functionally, sometimes it misfires.
But ultimately, it is, like a knife. And in that context, you are correct, it has no inherent value beyond function.

This, I submit, applies not just to all tools of morality-ethics, but to all words, thoughts, ideas. They have neither inherent value, nor is there necessarily inherent value in what they purport to represent; nor, and especiallythis, do they import value upon their users.

There is only used functionally, thus settled upon (believed) or dysfunctionally, thus modified or abandoned.

And all of these, temporarily, cyclically, perpetually, and autonomously (as in not under the direction of any central agent including any so called Subject).

Hence there is no (absolute) right or wrong in our concepts etc., and the OP is correct, a body should follow its "heart." [Albeit, alas, that final imperative, too, is empty and fleeting].

There are many personal motivations which from the heart that are "good" but may conflict with morality, such as loyalty and love, which may lead to actions that "betray the group" — Judaka

Yes, but, you rightly pointed out that morality is the second quote--coercive rules. How I read the OP is they're wittingly moving away from that to follow their heart; implicitly, to make room for "good" which may not be considered conventionally moral.

I am not keen on religious doctrines posing as a philosophy of consciousness, nor am I inclined to side with mysticism as anything other than a pacifier of sorts — I like sushi

While I understand one must always discriminate, may I ask, what has locked you in so seemingly tight such that you have fettered your discretion to pursue truth openly. Is your strict adherence to reason not prescribed by the very thing adhered to?ɓ

just like "gbischitz": nothing meaningful being said and entirely out of meaningful contexts — Constance

Yah, but gbischitz has now been assigned "signifier of nonsense."

But really. Signifier only of the inherent meaninglessness of all signifiers until meaning has been assigned.

Being too shares that origin. Inherently meaningless. That I know is ultimately what you are saying. It is implied that in uttering being, I have already accepted that my utterance is only as good as how far I can throw it; and, I can't ever throw it outside of Mind's reaches.

And yet, I use the tool to point at the moon, knowing it's not the moon, but the finger.

Have you read Lao Tzu and Chuang Tzu? — T Clark

Ages ago. But the essence lingers. Like shit on a stick. :joke:

We are social animals. We like each other... usually. We want to be around each other. We want to protect and take care of those we are close with - our family, friends, community. — T Clark

I completely agree. I think our Natures have been slandered by wrongful claims that it is tge seat of our (implicitly, uncontrollable) appetites.

What does one surrender the will to but another will? — Joshs

I would say (especially since the OP brings up Taoism) that this "will" so-called, is just that, a thing so called.

But more to your point, what if you are surrendering the will--the incessant desires to make and believe unified in the made and believed subject, "I"--to no will, but rather to the organic aware-ing of the organic body in nature?

The "heart" as the OP suggests. Since we are forced to construct and project, I'll put such a morality into brief and simplistic words (but by doing so, I have already misrepresented). When hungry I eat, enough to be satisfied. When tired, I rest. When with my group (for the now global village, everyone) I bond and cooperate; I mate and guide young ones. All of these, always insofar as to satisfy the organic needs of my body and my group (today, humanity in totality), neither more nor less.

Applied to our inescapable world of make and believe, how does such a surrendering of the will to nature apply as a morality? We cannot drop out. History has made us something other than nature, and we cannot avoid it. But at least in the face of moral questions, act in accordance with our nature. When does it serve the body to rape or molest, murder, be taken away by constructions of emotions like greed and jealousy?

Acting in accordance with the Tao, the Heart, or Heaven, for that matter, I think means acting in accordance with our often displaced nature. We need to surrender "I" and my will to my true nature.

Chuang Tzu — T Clark

I think what Emerson readily expresses, "Good and bad are but names very readily transferable to that or this", Chuang Tzu was aware of. That all of the "things" ultimately constructing our morals, are just "things" arising from the evolution of difference. They are neither pre-existent nor absolute, but the contrary, constructed and projected to move our stories and project signifiers; things made-up and believed.

As for following your heart, if there's an iota of thought, let alone reasoning, harsh as it seems to say (for one, because it seems impossible to avoid), I think you are not following the Way that Chuang tzu presumably did. That Way would be to follow your organic feelings or drives (we, in the human world of make and believe only construct feelings and drives as being ravenous and aggressive; in nature, eons of evolutionhave ensured that they work appropriately).

As for the constructions and projections, I think Chuang would suggest, go along for the ride without any prejudice. Do that, and to the world, you might seem dimwitted and indifferent, even reckless in your lack of concern. But in your heart, you are always doing as your body naturally responds, so you are always doing right. While in the projected world, there is no right besides what has been constructed and projected from time to time.

Pull as far away from this as possible, and questions become one question, that of being qua being. — Constance

Yes. The only question in which the answer transcends Mind.

But to get here, this is the issue — Constance

Yes. But you are here. You don't know it. Not for want of brilliant effort, but because it transcends knowing. You are-ing it; that's where you'll find it.

see a tree and tree memories rush in to make "seeing a tree" seeing a tree — Constance

Yes. Everything is that. Even the self, where memories of "I" flood in to make seeing me, "seeing me."

excerpt from the Deduction interesting, — Constance

Thank you. I intend to read Husserl for the first time beyond Anthologies and intros to Heidegger. And reread critique and being and time. Agree?

Consider that time is one moment occurring after the next and in order for the mind to grasp a whole thought, these moments must be linked together or "synthesized" into a unity. — Constance

Yes. I think that's exactly what happens--in the process, Mind--a synthesis of successive presents into a constructed unity. Two of the mechanisms having evolved to make that now functional linear, narrative form happen are the Subject (/object duality ie difference) and Time. Yes, constructed. Hence becoming. Being may be in some space/time universe. But being just is-ing, the movement of that time, if any, has no meaning.

You might find Henry's — Constance

Right, and Henry. Which I assume is either not a Husserl phenomenologist or has radically modified it?

:up:

Sorry. No. I mean, the presumably necessary conscious observer need not be the deceased individual whose experience of death we are "assessing". It simply needs to be [a] conscious observer.

and might postdate him as well (say, after his death). — LuckyR

But not necessarily "him" in any sense of that word. Right?

Meditation and Husserl's epoche are, I argue, simply the same thing, only meditation is the reduction radically executed. — Constance

I agree; maybe you mean this, but my modification might be, meditation is an exercise of the body/epoche an exercise of the mind. H's epoche is arguably as close as one can get without turning away from tge intellect altogether.

it is questions all the way "around". — Constance

Yes, I'm totally with you on everything preceding. It is a "dream world," which happens to be a label constructed by tgat very dream world, and so on. That too, all the way down. No access that way, to ultimate truth. So what to do with it? Abandon? No. No need. It's not in all respects a dysfunctional thing, quite the contrary. What to do? Tend to it. Tend to the business knowing that knowing is incessant "asking".

This is simply to say that to "pursue" refers to a basic structure of consciousness itself. Being cannot be extracted from becoming — Constance

Sorry. Not careful/skilled. It's exactly the point I too think I have been expressing. Of course being cannot be pursued; pursue is the very meat of becoming.

What I mean to say is just that. To know Being is what philosophy ultimately desires. But being cannot be known. It can only be.

The same, unironically, can be said of any organic activity. They can be discussed, represented in ways which justify belief because they serve ancillary functions, but they cannot be known truly for what they are.


I'm saying that about the whole human being. Knowledge is necessarily not truth because our truth is in our organic functioning, period.

We love our imaginations, they have enhanced our prosperity, but they are still just our imaginations.

Even our excitement about metaphysics, phenomenology, existentialism, etc., is just imagination excited about imagination.

Being requires agency. "No one" there implies no experience at all. — Constance

I think Agent desires agency and has structured that into the laws of reasoning

It is in the same way the Subject has been so structured by grammar, and from that logic, and general reasoning to the extent of common sense. No one would wonder when this body presses these buttons, triggered by autonomous movement of images in this body's image-ing organ, to produce signifiers which surfaced because they "won" the incessant lightening speed dialectical process to project the fittest, that it isn't I doing it.

But I submit, it is not. Do a simple tracing of the Signifier and find what is the natural root of I. If it's anything but the silent, thoughtless, body, unconcerned about protecting its identity because it has none, concerned only with perpetuating life, then it's part of the story, following an evolved--because fit--rule of grammar. It's out of the latter, grammar, that the soul or spirit Narratives arose. We did not create tge Subject to signify the soul.

We are always already existentially schizoid, for the division between acceptedness and the question is implicit in the paradigm of normalcy, just as, as they say, one does not become the Buddha, but rather realizes that one IS this, and has always been this. — Constance

Well, yes. I totally agree with you here. For me, what we have always been is Nature, rudely put by science, matter. Mind despises that. It is not fit for mind's prosperity to project such a construct, so it's outright denied by the melancholy poets/mystics of philosophy, metaphysics. But the silly truth is, I am this biological being. Why not praise God for that? Because we don't want what we already are, Living. We want knowledge.

I don’t think the badness of something is necessarily dependent on a conscious mind being aware of it or — Captain Homicide

I agree.

And yet, I also think the "badness" of something is necessarily dependent on a conscious mind, to begin with. That is, though we might argue differently, it seems to already be "the experience" of conscious minds (collectively) that death is bad. So, is it only bad for conscious minds? And if so, once dead, does it cease to be bad for the deceased?

I'll admit, I may not have framed it well. Hopefully you can still find my point. Is being alive a necessary condition of death being bad?

Maybe within grammar (Nietzsche). — 180 Proof

I can get behind that.

The argument moves forward to show how this analysis moves inevitably toward metaphysics, — Constance

Insightful! Everything--even value, thus, ethics--is "hiding" in the metaphysical. But where is the latter "hiding"?

I know not actually hiding.

Because there is no life after death. It is purely an emotional desire people want to believe in. — Philosophim

Yes, like out of body experiences, spiritual enlightenment/"salvation", ghost and alien summoning/sightings; all of which have similarly consistent reports.

I loved this. Thank you. I am persuaded on the face of it. I can't help a couple of hesitations below. Your skill in logic/knowledge of the literature is far more advanced than mine, so maybe you can quickly dismiss them. And I'm not patronizing: I am truly impressed, but for...

First let me get what troubles me out of the way. I know and appreciate all of the complex layers of your cogent reasoning. But what stands out is the persuasiveness of the 5%=millions. Could millions be liars and or delusional and or themselves persuaded before its first conversion into data? Maybe, but assume not. Could you say (and I haven't looked into this) the same about those who claim to be born again, saved by the holy spirit (speaking in tongues, muscle spasms, new outlook etc) or those who claim Satori etc? Or visitations/alien viewings?

And you can't just say in those other e.g. consistencies arise from shared wishful thinking, without applying that to NDE testimonials.

What are these consistent reports? — Sam26

What if there might be other explanations for the consistencies besides that the claims are factual?

And it doesn't have to be deviant. Absorbed from human culture/History, are these shared "desires" regarding immortality/"an" afterlife, built into our collective Narratives to which we each assimilate by simply sharing in our locus in History. These manifest/are input when as children we express fear of the end of our own Narrative and a "teacher" (anyone) soothes them by inputting modifications to the Narrative: bright light, Jesus will call you, you'll be reunited with loved ones. And as for the tunnel: death is the otherside, the passage to etc.

Perhaps when one is close to death, or whatever such trauma is, these modifications flood the brain to trigger soothing feelings and to allay the pain of fear.