Representation as "Illusion", as if it is NOT double-aspected but rather epiphenomenal, that is to say somehow "emergent from". However, this second interpretation would seem to be false under his own pretenses regarding the co-occurrence of both. There can be no prior or "originary", only BOTH being one and the same. — schopenhauer1

I get why ultimately they must just be Will (I have in mind, none of the nuances peculiar to each philosopher. Most basic: will=ground of being; representation=those projections emerging there"from").

But.

Is it possible to conceive of the projections (phenomena/mind/becoming) as epiphenomenal, ultimately not "real;" and so, there is ultimately only one, but the projections are nevertheless

1) existent (though fleeting and empty, like shadow paintings)
2) effective against the real. Like a Fictional story can cause one to really cry. It effects reality while maintaining its status as Fictional
3) avoidable, or at least, tune-out-able by a process of attuning to the Will (drive for survival) without attention to the projections (desire and suffering)
?

Genius poor guy.
15m — frank

No doubt

Not exactly, look at our conversation right above: — schopenhauer1

Below is from your conversation above. That is the very point I "think" I am concerned about. Seems to me I should pause again. :smile: Sorry.

But then when one is "denying the Will", is one employing "higher Will" to deny the "lower Will"? And then this starts to unravel... And then you get to bring in those fun Sanskrit and Pali terms to placate it. — schopenhauer1

For Schopenhauer, this is through the negation of the will, while in Buddhism, it is through the elimination of craving and the attainment of nirvāṇa. — Wayfarer

Sorry Wayfarer, I just noted your reveal. Thank you. And I see that you might note (not unlike Gnoman) that The "division" is not ontological, between Will and Suffering, but rather a "choice." Suffering does "emerge out of" the Will, but one might "attempt" to "avoid" it by negating the will.

I would only suggest that negating the will (ground of being) does seem impossible (as Schopenhauer the forum member has been pressing with kindness). It would make more sense if the "resolution" to suffering is negating the projections which (I believe to be) its "locus."

But things are more clear now in that I understand where I diverge.

One analogy I've found for Schopenhauer's 'will' is the Buddhist 'tannha' (craving or thirst). — Wayfarer

Ok, if that's the case, then definitely he places suffering in the category of the real being, and unlike Buddhism, not in the category of Maya/Samsara/Karma. That is, suffering for S. is not restricted to the "illusions" but also Buddha Nature (if that and S's "will" are similarly the ground of real being).

As to why his line of philosophical history separates them, I would have to understand what you mean exactly. — schopenhauer1

I mean to say, for me the two categories summarized as X and Y are ontologically(?) separate. The one being, "Being", the other being a modified "reality" mediated or projected solely by the emergence of human minds. If I am mistaken, and for all of these philosophies, X and Y are indivisible (I.e. suffering cannot be isolated to Mind or resolved in being, independent of mind), then why are they consistently spoken of as if one is the ground of being and the other projections of Mind?

The Noumenal ding an sich is also the idea of a Phenomenal object, as represented in a mind — Gnomon

Ok. Here I see the distinction from what I'm proposing. At least for Plato and Kant. But what about Schopenhauer?
If K and P were not positing two "realities" one being, the other becoming, wasn't Schopenhauer?

I see from further in your reply, likely not. As for the "two realities" I'm observing, as you suggest, these might be two ways to "choose" to view the one reality?

Hmm.

Thank you to all three, for helping me understand.

Despite my efforts, and the generous input of others in this thread and otherwise, I have yet to properly grasp (or abandon) what I believe to be something basic. So I will present it as simply as possible below for the consideration of anyone not yet worn out by my repeated efforts.

Where below am I naive or inconsistent?


PLATO
Forms(X)-->Particulars(Y)
KANT
Noumena(X)-->Phenomena(Y)
SCHOPENHAUR
Will(X)-->Representation(Y)

ALTERNATIVELY
Being(X)-->Becoming(Y)
[Body]-->[Mind]*
[Living]-->[knowing]*

While there are seemingly significant qualifiers differentiating each beyond nuances, is it not true that the following can be "extracted" from the "root" of each (i.e. before the differences emerge)?

Y is the "ground" where difference, therefore, meaning, therefore, desire, therefore, suffering is "constructed." This ground is mediated reality.

X is the "ground" where there is only the will to survive. No difference, etc., therefore no constructing suffering. This ground is direct reality.

And if X and Y are indivisible, inseparable, and not "two" distinct "grounds," why does this line of philosophical history separate them?


*is it "Body-->Mind"/"Living--knowing" which is "problematic"?

As soon as the thing-in-itself is presented to sensibility, it is no longer -in-itself, it becomes a yet undetermined thing -in-us, and we can intuit, thus represent it as phenomenon, subsequently experience it and know it as a certain thing. S, on the other hand, wants all things as representations of will, which removes the very construct of representation from the cognitive system itself. Under these conditions, and in anticipation of Kant’s concept that no knowledge is at all possible for that without representation, we find the thing that was unknowable because it wasn’t representable, now is the very representation that was formerly unavailable to us. — Mww

How does a sensation follow from a representation, in the same manner as a sensation follows from a real physical object’s affect on the sensory apparatuses? — Mww

Kant took Plato’s forms from the external instances of universals and made them internal a priori content of the mind; S took Kant’s internal representations as content of faculties of mind and made them external objects of will. — Mww

:up: :up:
Thank you!


:

if we know our will indubitably, and if it is possible to make the will, as it is known, to represent what K stipulated as unrepresentable, then the thing K said we couldn’t possibly know, just disappears, and with it the entire Kantian epistemological dualism. — Mww

Unless the thing K said we couldn't possibly "know" we simply "are". Knowing belongs to the representations and it cannot "know" (represent) the present and real. What we are independent of the representations, the human being as a present participle. As in, not becoming, so not accessible to the becoming, the knowing, only accessible by being. We already are exactly that.

Admittedly neither orthodox to Kant nor to Schopenhauer.

To try to validate it in the "Eastern" context of Schopenhauer, Tat Tvam Assi. Ultimate Reality? You are that.

Anyway. This is a thought and I don't intend to pursue it. But I am interested in your thoughts, if any. I found your brief assessment to be excellent.

Will is identified as the noumena of Kant- the Thing-in-Itself. — schopenhauer1

Yes I understood that but rehashed it poorly.

so Will's expression via Representation is to have a subject that perceives, experiences, and knows objects — schopenhauer1

Ok, that is clarified now.

as Kant proposed, is mediated by a priori categories such as time/space/causality, such that when it looks upon the object, it manifests the idea of the object in space/time/causality and the PSR (the world of phenomenon). — schopenhauer1

Yes, this is where I have the most trouble and need to understand more thoroughly. And this...

The objects for Schopenhauer, are akin to some kind of Platonic Forms. These Forms are the direct manifestation of Will unmediated by a subject — schopenhauer1

WHY is it that Will has the double aspect? — schopenhauer1

...confusing me into seeing dualism...If you have a neat answer, please. Otherwise, I will read with a view to an answer.

That is to say, Will cares not for its individuated expressions that are its manifestations. We end up suffering as being taken along for its ride as beings who strive constantly, being expressions of Will. — schopenhauer1

And this, I understand and agree with, but with my modifications, admittedly requiring more "research" on my part before expressing the modifications with so much zeal

It is purely experiencing the Will without willing, if you will. — schopenhauer1

Wow. Not making conclusive comparisons, reminds me of Wu Wei, the Taoist, actionless action

If we deny-the-will to the point of getting beyond our own subject-object nature, we can perhaps escape. — schopenhauer1

I assume that last one was a generous "I guess," and not a certain position espoused by S?

Thank you,

I think you need to slow down a bit. — Wayfarer

Of course. I'm getting carried away. I'll follow your good advice.

First, apologies to both of you. Please ignore if it is frustratingly butchering Schopenhauer. For my part, I am grateful to him.

"And in all the other forms of the principle of sufficient reason, we shall find the same emptiness, and shall see that not time only but also space, and the whole content of both of them, i.e., all that proceeds from causes and motives, has a merely relative existence, is only through and for another like to itself, i.e., not more enduring."

The empty, for another like to itself, not more enduring, is, whether or not he expressed it as such, the relative constructions and projections of Mind. The location of suffering.

The more enduring is the living organism, the human body aware-ing its feelings, movements, sensations, without regard for the projections. The location of enduring.

The latter is impossible for the former to access; and so, yes, humans suffer inevitably, in their projections. But the latter is still there, still enduring, suffering when in pain, alone or hungry; blissful when fed, painless and bonding.

Note: the suffering projections indirectly code the body attuned to mind to feel suffering. That's where Zazen or forms of Yoga might alleviate suffering by highlighting the aware-ing of body, reducing attendance upon the Narratives of suffering.

Worst case scenario, why can't Schopenhauer inform history in unexpected ways? Isnt history itself, let alone Schopenhauer, always changing?

I'm reading from Will and Representation. Now, I'm skipping around.

Will. He speaks about as if it were an almighty scoundrel, etc. leading to the impression that the will is something "else". Separate. I won't even confuse it with a separate from "what".

I'm going to read before I conclude. But until then, here is a loose, but to me, compelling, picture.

Schopenhauer was not blessed with Husserl, Heidegger, and then all of the stuff that followed from existentialism to functionalism, structuralism, linguistics, postmodernism, psychoanalysis (and these are the blessings my limited narrative can enumerate), and he was barely exposed to Buddhism, the way, he would have been today. How can we disregard those limitations when honestly extrapolating? Extrapolating not to conclude with truth, but to clear the forest for a proper sense of what is worthy of interpolation.

So he intuits this autonomous thing, the will, and you tell me it's one and the same as the self, and Rationality, and those (among other things) constitute a unified, whole and real human being.

Or, is it, will is (in a Spinoza/panpsychism/Vedanta way) survival, the being of everything? In which case, what are these attributes or dualities?

Either way, owing to where he was along his (with humility, this) particular path

1. He was expressing qualities as dualities. Either forcing them into a monism to suit his narrative, or recognizing that only a single of the "dualities" like, will*, is real, the rest are projections. *though I observe he mis-defined "will" if by it he meant the insatiable etc; he mis-alotted some things to will etc..

2. His pathatic (as in pathos) pessimism is rooted in not realizing that the scoundrel stuff, the boredom, the suffering, isn't our will, there is hope; though the "scoundrel" has a powerful hold. Ironically, our will is that supple. The hope is in the interpretation that the dualities are projections; and correcting his error that insatiable follows naturally with survival. The will if that is organic being, is balanced. The dualities are insatiable.

Schopenhauer generally got everything right, and to him history owes a debt, but assuming his "the will" is the real being, (so far) he was mistaken in locating dissatisfaction and suffering there.

Poor guy. Thank you.

That looks perfect. Very much appreciated!

sorry to impose, friend. But do you have a link to sources for Schopenhauer primary? I have no reason to expect you would. But it's very frustrating just googling your way through reddit, wiki, etc.

It's not prescriptive, but descriptive. — schopenhauer1

Oh. Ok. Makes way more sense. Damn. :smile:

Zapffe's model lays it out well (distract, ignore, anchor in some value or reason, and sublimate). — schopenhauer1

This is very interesting. I'm not certain about the "psychology" of Schopenhauer. perhaps because it is more difficult to relate to an individual from the early 19th C. But it is easy to imagine the desperation driving Zapffe to lay out such a model.

This, I state rhetorically because I can anticipate the "orthodox" answer. Such desperation, coupled with a plan that involves at its essence, urging us to "deny" our "Truth" (given our condition is, as you and Schopenhauer and, presumably, Zapffe, conclude real and not "taking place/driving us" as a process of "fictions.") seems surprising, even cowardly. Perhaps it is the dissonance of that which drives me to prefer a model where we are exhorted to deny it, because it is not our essence nor our truth.

Anyway...I will move on, armed with much new information thanks to you.

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.