You cannot extricate that which is inbuilt into our evolutionary cognitive framework. — schopenhauer1

Yes, I understand that that is challenge. Interesting, though. I trust your interpretation of the reasoning. Yet, I have found "theories" in Western Philosophy no less, which either promote a hypothesis that the Mind and its projections are constructs and as such, other than real EDIT or rest on such a premise for related hypotheses.

My sense is that these are radical and contested views from the perspective of more conventional philosophy.

Your efforts have helped guide my perspective going forward, even if not changed my perspective outright.

I will keep trekking and inquiring.

sorry, I was stretching the hypothetical.

Suffice to say that internal mental chatter is the default state of humanity, excacerbated by our media-saturated culture — Wayfarer

I could rest there. But I'm compelled to add, and what is the source/nature/structure of that chatter? If a god created us did it have this chatter in mind? If we are organic beings formed by the evolution of cells, is the chatter a formation of cells? Is there a time when our ancestors, the species homo sapiens roamed about without the chatter?

I am having trouble what you envision this "being nature, pure and simple" is. And I am also perplexed how it is you think humans can ever get to it, overriding our innate linguistic-based/signifier capacities: — schopenhauer1

The first part I need to think of how I'm understanding/expressing this.

The part about how humans can override, yes, as I've said, I recognize the problem and it's degree. But I do not close it off for reasons given.

I'm starting with your last statement.

my contention is that in no possible world is there a state of satisfaction — schopenhauer1

Yes, we definitely diverge here.

I don't see how it could ever be different for the human animal — schopenhauer1

Here I mostly agree with you. I wont reiteratethe qualifier yet. Before humans developed language at lets say a level that included a basic grammar and a bunch of words, were we therefore different?

come from having a linguistic-based mind, and the dynamics of our brain. — schopenhauer1

There is no secret knowledge that then "drops" the pretense of a linguistic mind that evaluates, reasons, explains, etc. It is how humans function and is part of the socialization process, which cannot be bypassed. — schopenhauer1

I agree with all of that. Unless you wish, I won't explain how its not inconsistent.

What Schopenhauer was saying about Boredom, is beyond merely having nothing to do and tedium. Rather, it is a sense of non-fulfillment in our being. — schopenhauer1

Yes, I understood that earlier and have been enriched by the discovery that Schopenhauer had that idea. Thank you.

is driven by this angst. — schopenhauer1

Ok, I do believe I understand your explanation plus how it properly reflects Schopenhauer. And I am repeating myself, but from different angles. "This angst" is essential.

The angst has to have a basis in the body and its organic feeling, here I, you/Schopenhauer agree.

But you(s) "settle" there. You say boredom is built-in to the human being organically (or, I guess, some fancy surrogate like "being" but I'd question why). Hence ultimately the inescapable pessimism*. It is built-in to our very chemistry (people in a more social theory framework say same re violence, which I would equally contest).

I say, yah, it is pretty much inescapable because it's built-in, but it's not built-in to our bodies, but rather built-in to "our running narrative of reasons and explanations and goals and emotional responses, etc. etc. that come from having a linguistic-based mind, and the dynamics of our brain" those autonomous movements of signifiers, "culture" if that's palatable, but not what we really are, a restless organic being. Suffering like its root Boredom are mechanics of Mind.

we were to think about it in neoplatonic or medieval, or gnostic terms, we can say that a "perfected" state, one of purely "being" (not becoming) would be one where we would wont for nothing. There would be no need for need — schopenhauer1

That is what one would imagine pure being to be while that one is trapped in becoming. But being is nature, pure and simple. Why wouldn't it be unless the "one" deciding has a vested interest in elevating other. There is no other. It is made up of images projected from reality to reality. But in that loop, is boredom and suffering.




*(looked into Zapffe by the way, lamented his poor existence. I might be fixated as he was by an error. Thank God Mind's positive)

but how could it be different, for the human? We evolved thus. — schopenhauer1

Yes. Im not self deprecating, just being honest, maybe I lack the skill in logic. I don't see how that accurate statement precludes that our evolution included an "emergent" (not restricted to any scholarly/academic use) system of signs which evolved a law and dynamic of its own which are "other" than everything else in nature; made not of energy and matter, but of images operating to form "order" meaning/narratives out of the "chaos" always-only-being-doing of what really is. I won't explain all the details of how this might have evolved in this space. But I've learned about it in many forms from Plato to Kant and thereafter.

You're right, there is no dichotomous reality. But humans are attuned to something operating as an orderly narrative, when that's not what is really happening.

Hmm. It's an artificial layer on top of reality. Like makeup isn't the face though one might only know a face through the make up. Hmm because that was risky. Disregard.

For us reality is necessarily mediated through the projections firing off autonomously in the brain, not what the senses immediately see. And this only for humans. How just an organic evolution. It is very "other".

Will is ultimately the idea of this radical instrumental nature to existing as a self-reflective animal in this world. — schopenhauer1

Oh. Are you suggesting that because we are radically instrumental in nature, and also are self-reflective, Will is. I.e. will is self being instrumental. (?)

If we are but illusory Will, trapped in subject-object, then the saintly person is able to be moved beyond this to see all as universally the same Will and thus helping with another's suffering and easing their burden is to them a delight as it is helping themselves. It is as if there was no separation.. — schopenhauer1

Was that Schopenhauer or yourself extrapolating? Either way, for those like me,
sometimes reckless with details, this statement is exactly the Bodhisattva (sp?) in Mahayana Buddhism.

My (reckless) extrapolation in these discussions leads to the same conclusion. Assume you accept my extrapolation, that the boredom and suffering "exist" only as projections, and thus that reality "exists" in being the living organism, without regard to those projections, then a hypothetical being aware-ing "organic reality" yet "aware of" the projections, would want nothing but to alleviate that suffering; one so simple to alleviate.

he didn't think everyone had this kind of agapic/philial love capacity — schopenhauer1

Sorry. Because he didn't go beyond that discovery about boredom; he assessed it from the perspective of the slave to boredom. Had he encountered the idea, he'd have found the universality of that bonding love in the same place we found "restlessness", the organic human being, not displaced by its own projections.

Everything is instrumental.. all the way down. O — schopenhauer1

Yes. I hope Im not confused; I use "functional". The projections have evolved such a "requirement." Yes, nature too is "functional" but (wish I knew the term/fallacy) this coincidence between projections and nature both evolving functionality as its engine, doesn't make them one, or even the same.

Will is ultimately the idea of this radical instrumental nature to existing as a self-reflective animal in this world. — schopenhauer1

I'm not confident I follow

I think the Stoics to a point, have it right in the mindset that one has to put forward the "worst" version of events.. But not for the sake of virtue, as the Stoics would have it, but because it is therapeutic to the soul to confront one's Willing and suffering nature. — schopenhauer1

Yes. The Stoics I have only had brushes with. But there is wisdom in both there version, because it is virtuous; and yours, because it is therapeutic. Maybe they are views of something similar. Maybe virtue is "therapeutic."

last remark. I did not comment on Zapffe because I know even less than I do on Schopenhauer. But that I am definitely going to read into. Thanks again.

Less adequately pondered is the fact that much of what it is that the two have in common was taken by Schopenhauer from Kant. — Bryan Magee, Schopenhauer's Philosophy

I'm surprised, but i can see that, even
being a novice re Schopenhauer, and only marginally more familiar with Kant. However, my experience has been that there are parallels of all degrees of patency/latency in many philosophies. While I have cringed in the past when people have said so, and I get how cliche it sounds. It holds true.

Nice that he mentions Tao of Physics, too. — Wayfarer

:up:

Hey. You might see (if you don't already) where we diverge--even with respect to Schopenhauer. Or, perhaps, that we do not diverge.

I am not (despite appearances) more than 51% confident about these "beliefs" but they currently tip the scale, and that 2% becomes everything.

I think there is a Real living body in a real living nature and universe. And as for so called "reality," (the word, already a projection), I think "I" a projection, have no business (besides self interest) denying that that's Realty, my living breathing body in nature.

I think my body is, by its nature as being, always aware-ing "itself" which is its senses, drives, internal images/memory, feelings, and movements, all of which happen as a biologically conditioned process. We don't have to project "I am hungry" to aware-ing feeling hunger, etc.

Now the projections, you've been generous enough to go along with, I recognize that the Body makes them and the body receives them. They're not these Cosmic Grand Projections like "Maya" if that settles any concern.

And this is where I believe you and Schopenhauer major, stop, as I tread into the wilderness. You reason properly, acknowledging already that the projections are body's, that even if boredom is both constructed and projected, it is the very Body's (we assume nervous system) nature doing it. We cannot but artificially divide projection from body. That would seem like some archaic, Eastern no less, Maya (and maybe Im exaggerating. Point is, it is body both making and feeling boredom).

But what I am saying is that while the projections are made by images stored in memory and restructured in the body's image-ing "organ" (I know nothing about the Science), the "Projections" per se (since, as we seem to agree, ontologically indivisible from the being from which they proceed because they are, "as projections" i.e., the "images", nothing. They are fleeting, empty, structures of images functioning to code body to feel and act in a biological system set up for autonomous conditioned response)...But, the projections "as projections" are exactly where the Narrative of suffering takes place. Neither when Buddha said it, nor Schopenhauer were they referring to anything besides the narrative of suffering (try to describe what they meant otherwise ("describe" already too late) without narrative). Boredom too. Yes both are real; and for both (Suffering and Boredom) their cause and effect is the real body. But these projections as projections have strangely, unique only to humans,* taken the helm of the body's real consciousness, its aware-ing of its drives and actions in nature, and has displaced them with stories. Unique among all creatures, we don't attune to reality, we attune to the projections as projections. The Reality remains. It's just attuned to the "television." Reality, so attuned, becomes the character "I" and emotes "boredom" instead of being Reality, and feeling restless.

It is that just described, which is the why of suffering, and why attuning to one's aware-ing might help (though I agree, might be "psychologically" impossible; but not becausevthat reality is the projections as projections; it is not). Call it psychological if that makes it palatable; say that the projections I insist upon as evolving an autonomy and displacing our organism, is pure psychology; either way, I cannot but settle here for now.

*explaining how is complex etc. Also, I feel almost embarrassed for us that we don't realize the projections are unique, they don't make us special or privilege us. We are conceited apes riding on unicycles in pink frilly dresses and think the unicycle and dress are where it's all at.

But I see this idea of "already there" a kind of version of "mindfulness". "I am not this.." "My evaluation of the pain is not the pain".. Etc. etc. The thing itself, is not the thing I interpret. And so you convince yourself through a sort of repeated mantra that the pain you think you are feeling is not what is real. — schopenhauer1

And I understand the objection to that. While I might try to rebut by tightening my way of expressing that, instead, let's say it is correct and one who settles where I have is convincing themselves through a mantra. That would be "problematic," right?

Forget physical pain, hunger, absence of bonding etc. These, I admit are feelings and therefore (within the framework of my thinking) real. But take the suffering of losing your partner to infidelity, never succeeding at a goal, losing all your belongings to a fire, bankruptcy, and countless other forms of "suffering." Are these even similar to the so called instances of real pain described above? Is one suffering from these not just "convincing themselves through a mantra"? I don't know? Am I being sophist-like and just trying to pursue a position which I favor? If so, I need to be straightened out and am grateful. But I think I understand your objection, and yet, still "believe" (keeping it simple) there is a projected self which "suffers" and a real being which gets "caught up" in those projections only because they trigger real feelings.

Humans, due to the "projections" (using your terms), cannot help but be who they are- self-reflective beings. There is no "going back to Eden". Self-reflection is baked into the human condition. — schopenhauer1

Ok. Yes. I've been loose on this. Extremely likely there is no going back. I have consistently thought so. But not because the projecting/projects are real and natural (I am at a loss for better words) but because the projecting is how each mind inevitably and autonomously function. And since hypothetically the end of prehistoric times (dawn of human history) each human is input with this process by "socialization." Now granted my hope that one can find relief by being the Body instead of becoming the mind is just hope. But I do reserve that possibility. Likely my desire to be optimistic and give hope has carried me away in that particular thread about suffering.

To word it differently, I have no problem saying there is no escape from the projections. Where I do "have a problem" is saying they are real. The becoming mind/being body dichotomy, I cling to. This is not dualism, because ultimately only the being is real.

Also, I think you slightly misconstrue Boredom here as a secondary trait, when BECAUSE of its foundation in the HUMAN condition, — schopenhauer1

I 100% misconstrue and knowingly. This is my taking liberty with Schopenhauer. I say that the Organic feeling (I'm only calling restless for convenience) is real, and in the Organic human (and many other beings) condition; while dissatisfaction/boredom are projections displacing such innate feelings with the (ultimately false) Narratives projected by mind in its processes.

From a broad "philosophical" perspective, our differences and their root causes seem clear to me and I am not troubled, yet acknowledge I have much to learn.

But from a personal perspective, from the perspective of the individual mind behind the veil of Enoah, I am deeply concerned about our differences. Why? Because I do have much to learn. And it is entirely possible that I am missing something. Sadly, despite your kind efforts, I cannot see it. ADDENDUM; note however my goal is not consistency with Schopenhauer per se.

This sounds like the fadd-ish distillation of Buddhist practices of "mindfulness". — schopenhauer1

Originally (unwittingly) derived therefrom. The difference (which is essential) being that it is exactly not in mindfulness (at least not in mindfulness as theory) that "one" attains "relief" from the "predicament" which Schopenhauer (correctly) observed. There is nothing "spiritual", nor "idealist[ic]" in it. It is exactly in "realism". That is the Body is already "relieved" from both boredom (yes, the body can be restless, a presumed evolved mechanism for survival; but boredom is the "projected" "version" displacing restlessness** ) and the "resulting/associated" suffering/dissatisfaction/desire.
I submit animals "suffer" pain and struggle; but it is our "words" alone which construct "suffering" for us. And relief from suffering is not in the four noble truths, the eightfold path, jnana, bhakti, karma, or katha yogis: it is not in any form of practicing ascetism. The relief is already there in the living being's natural and real nature, as a being, undisturbed by becoming.

It is projections all the way down, — schopenhauer1

Yes, definitely. Except we are not the projections, albeit, seemingly captive by them.

I think there is this underlying "truth" (it cannot be truth at all in its expression: only in living) in much Western Philosophy, though both those who intuited it, and the millions of interpretations, inevitably failed (just as I am failing miserably) at expressing it. Plato's cave allegory. The real being is unconcerned/undisturbed by the shadow paintings "projections." Kierkegaard's Knight of Faith, undetectable to the rest of us, she has surrendered any hope of actively changing her incessantly dissatisfied condition, and yet, by faith in the reality of her true being, carries on knowing she will be satisfied.***


**(the exact words used must be "transcended." A problem inherent to "philosophy" is also inherent to the rest of the human condition: our projections do not and cannot access reality)

***yes, I have "bastardized" both Plato's and SK's points, but as I say, each of them, and I too, cannot but "bastardized" truth in its expression. I am "really" saying this single point: The relief from suffering is in attuning, even if extremely briefly, to your true nature and to realize there is no suffering.

Anyway, back to my so called real job for now, I will read with enthusiasm upon my return to the forum.

ADDENDUM: Should it appear otherwise, do not think for e second that i do not "know" that it might very well be projections and nothing but; this driving my desperation to find a "real-er" reality. But...

And its not that we cannot extricate our aware-ing true nature/being from the chattering boredom. It's that as Schopenhauer (of this forum) showed me, boredom is built-in to that chattering. EDIT I then add[causing us to attune always to its resolution and resist our true natures]

(carrying on from our discussion on suffering)

ignorance is bliss — Outlander

I think Schopenhauer traveled very close toward truth, but like everyone, could not extricate the path traveled from the truth found.

His pessimism is derived from his attachment to the very source of the problem he "disccovered," that boredom/dissatisfaction is an inescapable condition for humans and incessant striving/desire the inevitable result: human suffering. (Arguably, outside of physical pain, physical fear and "lonliness" all suffering including anxiety/depression as we currently commonly understand/experience may be rooted therein); and it is derived concomitantly from his resistance to the "True" locus of "bliss," the Organic Being undisturbed by Mind; untempted by its striving and attachments. He failed to take the Vedanta/Mahayana wisdom far enough. (In that regard, a victim of his age. Bless him for how far he got!)

Ignorance is bliss is not saying stupidity is bliss. It is saying living without clinging to the activity of boredom and its cessation (impossible), but rather attuning to the do-ings of [your] nature, body hungry/body eat-ing; body tired/body rest-ing etc., is already bliss.

Believing that the world "is", and you are just there putting your spin on it, matters not, as you will never extricate the two. — schopenhauer1

And, yes, I can't deny that. I'm providing poor to no clarity on how it isn't anyone putting there spin on it. And same goes for the "world".

But I sought information, not intended to address my hypothetical anyway, but to inform me on Schopenhauer "proper".

And I read through your comments, the ineluctable Subject, the Body/Mind unity, etc. And I won't continue to burden you with my "take".

The salvation part, yes, is fascinating and helps soften the pessimism rep. I wouldn't say I would expect or require that the "salvation" in a philosophy be transcendent, and definitely not spiritual. That's beyond philosophy. That's where I would look for Moksha. But I think Schopenhauer philosophy can follow into a "salvation " derived from "knowing" and accepting the inevitability of suffering rooted in boredom and "seek" ethical and constructive ways to ride it out. Could that be squeezed into at least a reasonable position issuing from Schopenhauer?

So informative. You know this stuff. Had to thank you

I’m guessing this guy’s a plumber. Not classically beautiful, I grant you. — praxis

Luminous with beauty.

Please feel free to bow out without notice, as this goes beyond the scope of discourse on Schopenhauer that I should reasonably expect from one who is both informed and seems to have a natural understanding. Plus I don't want to exploit your courtesy.

I realize I've shared less than an iota of my current path regarding how, from my explorations, suffering belongs to Mind, but not Reality. And I add the second caveat tgat I am admittedly in nursery school re Schopenhauer. Plus, I take convenient liberties, or a reasonably broad reading of most, which is unfair.

My liberal use doesn't prohibit my interest also, in learning the proper one, so please clarify when I misunderstand Schopenhauer.

Given "mind is a process of projections and so all our narrative experiences are just projections to the real aware-ing being, the Body, brain and all," are our experiences ultimately meaningless? Nihilism? And, per the OP, is there no relief from suffering?


The condition of Mind being artificial projections is not nihilism, nor even a thing to lament.
1. Meaning only matters to the projections. Mind is meaningful. That’s all it is, a dynamic system operating to displace the present aware-ing with constructed and projected meaning. Anyway,
2. There is a Real Being: “your” body. It is one with its doings in the natural real world. It neither has meaning nor therefore suffering. When feed-ing its feed-ing, when pain-ing, pain-ing. The fact that the projections code real feeling and action is not evidence that the projections are real, it's evidence that the body is real. The projections affect nature, but they are not nature.

And here’s where Schopenhauer has shellacked my thinking. Not only is incessant construction of meaning (Signifiers coding feeling) what Mind does. It must. Dissatisfaction is necessary to give rise to desire of Signifiers to project continuously, in order to resolve the built-in condition driving the system forward (Narrative/Time), Boredom. But it is not built into the Body, it is a foundational mechanism in mind.

Body must provide the feeling to drive boredom, hence we think boredom, a pure construction, is an immutable reality in nature. There are the projections boredom leading to projections desire to projections suffering. These correlate to/trigger/are triggered by feelings, but we experience the images, the Narrative, not the feelings (anymore)

How do the projections of boredom trigger the (restless) feeling which causes aware-ing Body to project dissatisfaction triggering in cycles desire?

I think you were right a few back, animals are restless, it drives them to move for the herding, hunt for the predators, gather for the whatever. We are driven by this restless feeling whenever not paying attention to the drives and the (status of the organism/group in the) environment.

Mind projects this, once restless feeling driving survival, to insufferable boredom, a fiction which triggers desire, triggering more projections and attachments to same.

Thank you. Feel free to respond/move on at your pace/discretion.

Thank you. All very interesting. The scholarship has advanced from where I last left it.

It does seem far more likely that Paul "created" his Christology and its context than what is depicted in the Acts.

Either way, there'd be no Xtianity as we know it, without that "notorious" event on the road to Damascus.

which in my view is a tangent, rather than a descendent of the original group. — schopenhauer1

Ok, right, and by original group, you may have meant gnostic, but that's my suggestion regarding Essenes, not a direct relationship to the "author(s)" of Th. But a relationship nonetheless. Unless, you're telling me the Essenes are established gnostic. But yes, I too am fascinated by First-second C gnostics, for ghe same reasons as those you referenced. When it is not offensive to orthodoxy, I like considering such an influence (even if a homeopathic trace) on the historical Jesus.

such as Mary Magdalene's intricate connection, and the importance of James the Just, Jesus' brother. — schopenhauer1

Ok, you're sparking my memory now. You're saying Magdelene and James had gnostic ties, right. There are influences on the historical Jesus then. Not sure if you're saying not so for Th., that Th. is of the later gnostic, the ones that represented the various (two?) Heresies, Arianism(?) and I forget tge other guy, Marcion?

certainly the notion of "the Law" being overtaken by the "higher truth of Christ", — schopenhauer1

Yes! Without a doubt. Otherwise where the heck did he come from? He was supposedly a Pharisee, so not Hellenic philosophy, right? Yet his Christology gives goosebumps, even from a historical-critical read. Radically emancipating to the level of mystical. He makes Jesus's world functional "love even your enemies," mystical, like Moksha. But I fantasize a bit,
I know his eschatology was pretty much Biblical. Right?

as a tangent (quite deliberately so), — schopenhauer1

Oh, OK. That might explain the "radical"? Or are you saying Paul was "presented" by the Church as a tangent from Peter/James for e.g.? Imagine genuine Epistles of Paul buried somewhere because it reflects accord with the Judaisers.

The emphasis on the Kingdom, Son of Man, use of baptism, End of Times, and asceticism point to a strong link to the group — schopenhauer1

Excellent, makes me even more confident in the Gospel of Thomas (regardless, I am an admirer) historically. As opposed to it being some post synoptics neoplatonist/gnostic set up. Or, if there are updates there too that you know of? I guess we're discussing how Christinity (as an institution) may have "erred" not on the side of good.

I won't lie, Im too "busy" (lazy?) to pick up a book on that topic, though a passion lingers. I appreciate the link to YouTube.

The other sleight of hand is to believe Jesus wasn't at some point at least a student of the Pharisees, which he seemed to be, before being heavily influenced by John the Baptist and his Essenic form of Judaism. Mix that together, you get Jesus' most likely ideological underpinnings. — schopenhauer1

Fascinating. I have not kept up with New Testament scholarship for years. I can recall the pharasaic influence, plus some hint regarding the Essenes. I'm asking because it was still controversial last I looked. Is there a strong consensus that J the B was an Essene?

Also, I don't know if Scorces's The Last Temptation offends you (my guess from your text, is not, but if so, apologies). Though Fictional, I liked the depiction of the Essenes and J the B in that film.

Galatians as opposed to Romans regarding Paul's complete thinking. — BitconnectCarlos

Sorry if I indicated that. I agree Romans is the source for a more complete recital of Paul's thinking, re Christ. Galatians, I raised as an epistle which could be misunderstood as antisemitic.

Could it not have been both? That he was both an evangelist who was serious about spreading Xtianity and reasonably saw circumcision and dietary laws as a hindrance to that end and that he was sincere in his views that Jesus was God and that salvation occurred through faith in him? — BitconnectCarlos

Yes, very much so it could have been that. Galatians simply illustrates a "desperation" not to have the evangelical success go backwards. But for sure you are correct.

gThomas lends further credence to Paul's disregard for circumcision. — BitconnectCarlos

Yes. Good point. I agree.

80-90 AD I don't know the extent to which the Sanhedrin was opposing or dealing with the Early Church in those days. — BitconnectCarlos

Again, what you imply is also correct. By then it was Rome. Makes you even wonder if the Sanhedrin was even as active in opposing Jesus as the gospels suggest, or if that too was "exaggerated" for political/identity reasons.

I think Schopenhauer would answer that you cannot help but pursue it; it's not a choice. — schopenhauer1

I understand that, and, think he may be
right.

We are habituated for anticipation for what we must do next. — schopenhauer1

Interesting. Yah, makes sense. Explains the inability not to follow the chatter, even by [thinking you can/are] trying to employ only the Body in that [cessation of] pursuit.

Hmm. I don't want that to be the case. But c'est la vie.

It is always you situated in the world, not just the world. Believing that the world "is", and you are just there putting your spin on it, matters not, as you will never extricate the two. — schopenhauer1

A very important point I'll have to [re]consider.

I've been enriched. I know it sounds cheesy, but I can't but express my gratitude.

we’ve started AI in the wrong direction, conceiving it first as disembodied brains — NOS4A2

Yes, because we also approach mind/body in the wrong direction, as if real being somehow inhabits the mind.

AI assistants mimic this human tendency at all. They rather seem to be open minded to a fault. — Pierre-Normand

I'd even stick to the first half without the second. If open-minded means "willing" (already not that) to explore beyond the farthest reaches of conventional, or better worded variations of that, they can't be open minded. The OP demonstrates that. It can be resourceful (to "itself" I mean), in producing an answer. It thinks of all of the broadly conventional structures out there, in order to reconstruct what it weighs (I dont know how) how best to answer. Thats what we do to, but I could never come close to that. But we add to that our unique flexibility which allows for (art and fantasy but also) exploration beyond convention, in AI's words, for curious questions. And I won't even get into built in barriers to open mindedness, like legal and political ones.

The very notion of an illusion presupposes that there is something real of which the illusion is a mere semblance or distortion — Sam26

Beautiful.
Leave it to an AI to gloss over/question whether we, its makers, aren't that something real, on any level.

Therefore, if consciousness itself were an illusion, what is the state we are actually in? — Sam26

It seems rather nonsensical to suggest that the very medium through which we understand illusions could itself be an illusion. — Sam26

I think that is the bridge we cannot cross with language. I agree with AI.

In short, claiming that consciousness is an illusion is not just misleading, but fundamentally incoherent. — Sam26

Yes. But AI was also correct, between the lines (in its unconscious (?)). The problem is in tgd language.

Maybe something loosely along the lines of, is the human mind organic and real (it will make a fuss about "real", I know but we're trying to keep our sense of "illusion" which AI yet doesnt have "sense" ...) or is it a projection of appearances none of which have the substance or attributes of reality? (forget it, we're not going to bypass its speedy wit when it comes to any questions we already know are unanswerable.

But that was very cool.

prefacing my thoughts with the caveat of being unlearned in the technological aspect, and especially the deeper sciences involved in shaping AI (and, come to think of it, unlearned in any facet of this issue), I think, the potentially insurmountable challenge (assuming the "goal" is to make artificial humans, not simply AI) is going to be in reproducing organic "feeling." By this I mean those related to "mood" and an unidentifiable "form" of thought (thoughtless thought); but not as in touch.

Technology is capable of reproducing mobility, sensation, and as you pointed out, information processing (intelligence).

But the root of our "aware-ing", independent of Mind (though "hijacked" or displaced thereby) is the way we are triggered to feel stemming from experience, and by that, every nano-"second" and corresponding subtle variation thereof.

And sure, we can duplicate a reward/punishment system with subtle variations possibly as sophisticated as our (I submit, some of which is even imperceptible to mind) sense of (inner) feeling. But whereas with the others, it seems we can even surpass the Organic faculties; when it comes to, what I would call the "real human consciousness" as opposed to Mind/Self consciousness, aware-ing-feeling, I have doubts we can ever succeed.

I think Mind itself fails to represent those feelings, but projects representations called emotions. Emotions are already a projection from Reality. It might be that we cannot duplicate a projected/represented Reality, now twice removed.

As a simple illustration (not purporting in any way to be an analogy, let alone sound) its like other forms of Fiction. When we project a real life character in books or movies, we can duplicate it in all respects but it's feelings. Think of the actor who played Ghandi. Even thoughts (at least knowable ones) can be transmitted if there was a way to record and transmit. But the Organic being is necessary for the feeling. Even the "how it feels" has "left" the Organism and entered Mind. That can be duplicated. But not aware-ing feeling.

ChatGPT 4.0

"Yes, that is a solid definition — Sam26

I guess it's inevitable. One day, perhaps in distant future generations, we'll add to our current amnesia about the nature and structure of our experiences, amnesia about the nature and structure of AI.

As for your definition of philosophy. I like it. Whats not to like? It seems uncontroversially "accurate." But it doesn't rule out variations or alternatives. And yes, most likely, no definition can.

Hence, philosophy.

Agreed. Time will tell is almost always a reliable proposition.

Just because something is constructed only for humans and only by humans doesn’t require that it not be real, not be, not be thereby constructed. Humans are being humans too. — Fire Ologist

I understand that reasoning, am willing to concede that you are more likely correct should this be decided conventionally. And yet..

what you mean? — schopenhauer1

I meant more generally. My exposure, as I said, were from those Histories (like Bertrand Russell, et. al) and Anthologies. My sense comes from those, and likely I'm reading in those "presentations" preamble, Histories, biographies, etc., an extremely subtle skepticism toward his interest in Eastern Religions (theirs, not mine) And its left a trace in my Schopenhauer file. Its not that reliable.

try following this thread: — schopenhauer1

Thank you

He elevates it from a passing emotion to THE emotion par excellance.. As it reveals the vanity of existence. — schopenhauer1

I find that compelling, if not metaphysically (and yet, there, is precisely where I do), then for certain aesthetically.

That in the end, we are not satisfied being. It is an endless onrush of satisfaction-fulfillment because cannot just be. — schopenhauer1

True, but, (though I may be misreading) for me, it's not so blue. I would uses as "hopeless" a hue, as Schopenhauer, if that was Schopenhauer, not me misreading a subtle melancholy into "because we cannot just be". Because that afterall is tge fact I accept.

Anyway, I accept wholeheartedly that human existence is an endless movement driven, as Schopenhauer brilliantly reduced down to its base code, by dissatisfaction.

But Im not so gloomy. One, I can work with that, I do anyway. Why fight it. Loosen the first person Narrator's grip on the endless pursuit; receive satisfaction (though fleeting) rather than pursuing it, And it will ease the tension of the dissatisfaction. And then, just carry on with management of boredom-->desire (Schopenhauer's implicit definition of the human condition, right?).

And Two, I'm alive (as in that's what I really am). And that by definition is the only "satisfaction" required. Satisfaction in being.

Again, Schopenhauer is an inspiration I'm eager to read that thread. Thanks again

Schopenhauer — schopenhauer1

He has aged well/was farsighted. I'm inspired to read further. Honestly, my only brush with Schopenhauer has been in those large philosophy readers. Yet, I knew I was compelled by his thinking. I sense there is a (subtle) propaganda campaign against him?

Happiness is not what is intrinsic, but rather dissatisfaction is — schopenhauer1

Right, it negates (or settles) dissatisfaction the built in mechanism driving the desire! I like this. (Extremely sorry if I'm taking any liberties in my (potentially mis)interpretation of your text. But i sure hope Im not. Im grateful!)

Boredom is seen as the ultimate revealer of a ground-state of dissatisfaction as he argues this to be the "proof" that we are not simply satisfied existing, but always rather dissatisfied. — schopenhauer1

Yes! I really liked his description of boredom. A fresh lesson for me. And impactful. Thank you. I know I am out of bounds not having read Schopenhauer remotely enough to make assertions. But he's involving Boredom, not as a metaphysical state etc, but because the fact of its epidemic manifestation in human experience "reveals" the "real" "metaphysicsl" thing of it, the built in mechanism of dissatisfaction-->desire. Very insightful. I "believe" that.

not even getting to the game of satisfaction-fulfilling.. Just maintaining the lifestyle to get there. — schopenhauer1

Yes. That "appears" to be the only fact, and so, in the "world" where "appear" is "fact", how can we avoid suffering. And so on as you go on to say, since birth, uniquely for humans, life is suffering.

Thanks again for the opening into Schopenhauer.

Does life have any potential to be anything beyond suffering, — Arnie

There's "good news" at the end.

If you indulge me to dissect "life" for humans into two parts: organic life, life proper; and the human experience, life constructed...if you go with that for 30 seconds, might I suggest the following answer briefly?

And note, these are my understanding of "things" from my very possibly heretical take on what I have gathered from voices, text, and coincidence. Im not an authority on any subject I address. Though I might present ideas as if I am regurgitating what is true to some source(s), I am not. I do not keep an academically responsible track of my sources, though like everyone, I am not unique from my sources, but at "best/worst", a unique by-product thereof.

Organic Life: not suffering. Its natural state is bliss; but within that context there is struggle. Life, because blissful, is driven to survive, and necessarily struggles to satisfy that drive. Inevitably there will be instances of fear, fatigue, hunger, pain, solitude (we naturally bond). But these feelings arise in our organic being without dissatisfaction, anxiety, angst, resentment, hatred, anger, strife, jealousy, misery. Life, already blissful, is not in perpetual becoming, not incessantly reaching and grasping, but rather, being, maintaining being. There is no "something." There is only being/doing-in-(successively)present-reaction-to-being.


Human experience: is suffering. But suffering is not real. Mind having displaced the drive to survive the present bliss, with desire to construct "something" and be heard (projection), has also displaced the natural bliss of being with incessant becoming. Because desire is necessary for becoming, dissatisfaction is necessary in order to perpetuate desire, which, in turn, perpetuates becoming, the manifesting of our projections. Desire cannot cease in Mind's world. And so we must suffer in order to desire the constructions we "pretend" are desired to end suffering; an ineluctable loop, which displaces natural fear, hunger, fatigue, with what we construct as anxiety, anguish, misery, all of it flawlessly perpetuating our becoming.

It might be an iota from impossible to stop becoming. If you were born into a world post prehistoric human animals, if you were born in History, you are programmed to displace being with becoming. Existentialism, thinks it has brought us methods of authentic being, but it only provides reasonable ways to navigate becoming. And though Zazen might appear as a means to bring one to the "silence" of being, and the extinguishment of the "I" of becoming, it doesn't last. You cannot delete, nor press "reset". The program automatically kicks back to the "Factory setting," and becoming continues on autonomously. Besides, you cannot "know" that being, you can only be "it," and the second you succeed at "returning" through Zazen to being, you desire to "know" that being, triggering you right back into the programmed becoming. The locus of inevitable suffering.

The"good news," it's OK. You are not that thing, the "I" (of) becoming. You are really that blissful being.

You wonder, is Life just suffering? No.

Human existence has suffering built in. It's how we grow. In a strange way of putting it, but it is no less a fact, without suffering, there would not be Shakespeare, the Eiffel Tower, Socrates, DaVinci, Icecream, Mozart, Billie Holiday, Charities, and Volunteer Firefighters, and as you know, we could fill this forum with the list of good which we get to experience, albeit constructed by us, and requiring, as one of the ingredients, perpetual suffering; good which we can choose to recognize, by simply incorporating it into each of our Narratives, as at least balancing the suffering. And we can choose to do so with gratitude.

Why? Because our being, that which matters, is bliss. And the becoming, well, we construct it, we can put effort into which projections surface upon our narratives.

It's not a bad deal, at all.

committed to daily recovery from foolery — 180 Proof

A kind of meta-psychotherapy?

A sharpening not of the narrative(s) of the mind for improved functionality of the individual narrative in history (which might be what psychoanalysis/psychotherapy is); but, rather, a sharpening of the what of, and the way mind writes/understands its narratives, and further, the "world" thereby constructed (for improved functionality of each of the individual narrative, the narrative in history, and, ultimately, for the improved functionality of history (and all of them, also, ultimately, holistically and "globally")?

I think we are historically/culturally/linguistically situated — Fooloso4

I am on board with that part.

but not thereby determined. — Fooloso4

Then--unless I misunderstanding--

1. Whence history/culture/language?
2. What/what process/who situate(s)/(d) us "there"?

Are these "things" H/C/L, at least at "source", immutable, preexisting, inevitable? By design?

And note, while I recognize our real beings, our bodies, are not directly determined by HCL, our Minds, are both the source of and determined by HCL.

However, no need to debate this further unless you feel it compelling. I'm already enriched by your comments, comfortable with what I view as minor divergence in our paths, and look forward to the next time they cross.

what is it about a candidate that experiences, such that he must consider something, the negation of which is impossible.

Answer: he must consider himself as subject. He is that to which all representations, all objects of consciousness belong, such that there resides an implicit unity in the manifold of all rational/intellectual doings. — Mww

I agree with that, because of the qualifier, "such that there resides an implicit unity," which of course is the function of the Subject. That is, to unify the movements under a surrogate "self" displacing/standing in for, the "embodied" being.

formerly a positive paradigm shift in philosophical thought but now in somewhat diminished favor. — Mww

No kidding? It seems "ahead" of its time to me. Regardless, I like it. A lot.

Whatever the "real truth" might be, it is not something we possess and not something we can come to know through a misguided model of reason based on the success of mathematics. — Fooloso4

I'm with you there.

"Words" can have multiple paths that can be traced by their history. To do so may require desedimentation. Doing so can open paths that have been closed, leading us away from our conditioning. Paths can be walked and paths can be made. — Fooloso4

Almost shocking how much I see it that way too. Funny how it takes me a few "call-and-responses" to start to understand another's narration.

What these prohibitions mean is subject to interpretation. — Fooloso4

Right. If it appeared otherwise, pardon my unwieldiness. I was saying both moral issues are similarly the product of and resolved by and as language (and not by reference to some eternal law accessible to Language and its multiform projections). But don't kill, being a path well tread seems like it comes to us from nature; more than don't eat meat which requires a dialectic on the surface to take place first but they are both similarly projections of Language and its autonomous processes