If Mahayana, and particularly Zen, falls under "esoteric," then, I think, simply put, the whole idea is to "transcend" philosophical thinking. What is the sound of one hand clapping must necessarily abstain, not only from logic, but from any "form" of "discursive" or other "conventional" "thinking" or "problem solving."

"If God were to hold all Truth concealed in his right hand, and in his left only the steady and diligent drive for Truth, albeit with the proviso that I would always and forever err in the process, and to offer me the choice, I would with all humility take the left hand."
---Gotthold Lessing

Not necessarily because I would do the same, but because I think that encapsulates the human struggle in matters of philosophy. And not out of humility, but more the opposite. Presumably, Socrates told his disciples the Truth about the futility of pursuing knowledge, but Plato went off pursuing anyway. Cant blame him. It's what we do. We displace the "God given"* Truth with our constructedKnowledge.
*I don't mean scripture nor revelation. I mean we are already the Truth. Like every organism, the Born Truth.

AND

"Not the wind, not the flag. It is the mind that is moving!"
---Huineng, the 6th Chinese Patriarch of Chan

For reasons which I cannot disclose. And I mean literally cannot; not, "not at liberty to".

Yes. Worrisome and likely true. Again, not saying I support Hamas. Nor am I saying I oppose Israel's right to defend. I was too careless in the comment you quoted. My point was and remains: care should be taken, especially in matters of intense conflict, with the Language we use. Obviously, that goes for me too.

Ok. I don't wish to argue that all of the middle east shares our western values. But you have provided info on Saudi Arabia. A state by the way, both the west and Israel are eager to make friends with. That does not tell us that the entire middle east is the same. Nor that Palestinians, if given self determination would follow suit.

But truly, I get your perspective, even respect and share your contempt for sexism etc.

I'm just saying. . .

Ok, great. You're not advocating for genocide. Which countries in the middle east force women to wear burqas, force them to be escorted by men and are abused by their husbands, by the way? I mean, if that, as you cited, is a good reason for Israel to clear out the rat's nest. Do the North African countries do that? Does Syria, Lebanon, does Occupied Palestine? Jordan? Iraq? Are burqas legally required in these countries? Is abusing wives condoned in these countries? Are there laws in these countries requiring women to be escorted by men? I mean, excluding the gulf states, which, besides Iran, also do not legally enforce burqas/hijabs, these are the countries that make up the Middle East. Maybe you've indirectly advanced the point I was trying to make. Careful use of Language is a constructive path to resolution. Careless language is either ignorantly unhelpful, or simply a deliberate weapon for further destruction.

Ok. Not the point I was trying to make. I'll accept responsibility for my failure in communication. But yours is well understood. No need for peaceful resolution, you say. Just kill them all.

These and other examples seem to be this longing for "Our Real Being", but in a way, they are vain attempts because once "crossing the divide" of the kind of consciousness of Signifiers et al, it is only like looking at a far distant shore that may or may not really be there. They are artificial/secondary ways of getting there, in other words. — schopenhauer1

The way to transcend our mundane and fictional selves, the troubled self, the self of Consciousness, is to be the Real and organic self, the aware-ing Body simply in its Organic Living. To say it is anything more—even to say, as Zen might, that it is to live unattached to the comings and goings of the Narrative self, the fiction—reflects still the narrative’s desperate hold upon me.

Yes. From where I'm looking, we're on the same page.

we become in a way "exiled" from how other animals are "Real aware-ing" — schopenhauer1

And with only the possible exception of timeless "moments" in Zazen, I feat, there is no way of returning from exile. Our Real Being is far too displaced by the inescapable chatter.

I recognize your point and agree with it. My point was certainly not a contradiction. To be clear, violence is never the advisable approach, nor justified. Another way to express my point is to ask, is it harmony or victory we are after? If it's the former, remember to use Language functionally, as a constructive tool, in its promotion. If it's the latter, admit that and carry on using Language as a weapon. I sincerely hope you didn't receive my comment in the spirit of the latter.

:ok: :ok:

Language controls the world. Words are not just potent signifiers; they construct our emotions and beliefs. Like code, it programs us. And it requires another code to--not "de-program", but--reprogram us. I am not weighing in on the politics or morality of the issue in Israel/Palestine. This is not a judgement but an observation of what is often the first insurmountable barrier to any honest attempt at harmony.

Perhaps it's simple, and the Language holds no power save and except to describe the actions. Perhaps anyone who uses violence or threats to intimidate or coerce a civilian population or government to further political, social, or ideological objectives is fittingly deserving of the moniker "terrorist" period. Perhaps any suggestion otherwise is manipulative propaganda, designed to control our thoughts.

I reiterate that I am not taking a stand on the two sides, nor am I condoning the violence. But I may be addressing the first necessary step to a final resolution of any similar problem: the care used in Language (notwithstanding the anticipated ire of those who, in the name of free speech, pretend to barf at any mention of political correctness).

If the 17th century African's rebelled; escaped in large numbers from a plantation, and massacred the white civilians occupying their and nearby plantations, would we call that Terrorist today? What about if Jewish captives of the Nazi’s, escaped en masse, a concentration camp, and massacred the civilians in nearby Mansions, including, god forbid, even the Nazi children out in harms way, skipping and living it up behind the walls of their fathers’ death prisons? Or the indigenous First Nations of the Americas pushed out of their homes by the fascist/racist expansion of their colonialist occupiers? Or the indigenous Africans of South Africa violently reacting to Apartheid. Today, would they be called terrorists?

And what about the Pxxxxxxxxxxs?

brown as you re-paint the old cave metaphor for artistic purposes. — Fire Ologist

A richly textured one, at that.

I worry about us for not proudly remembering philosophy is art, and for clinging steadfastly to the theories of the great philosophers as if they present Truth, rather than re-present art; those who jump to proclaim after Socrates that we cannot know, and that the rest of philosophy is verbal masturbation; those same who then qualify their claim with “yes, but So and so’s ontology transcends that and somehow arrives at Truth.” How can one, through introspection, arrive at any place transcendent? To paint a picture, in introspection you are entering the cave, a place riddled with shadows, making your way deeper into the darkest recesses, and always coming up with, what? If not more shadows, no matter how profoundly intuitive, no matter how reasonable, dazzling or convincing. How do you get from a place of shadows, anything but shadows? We say it is meaning we are after, but how, when it is constructed only out of these shadows and only represented, cast back upon the wall as meaning, and settled upon by spectators as meaning only after a final, sometimes imperceptible, but nevertheless always necessary leap, commonly known to us as belief? How do you get from the inside world of shadow paintings to the outside world of Reality by delving deeper into the inside? That is what, from my read, Plato did, followed by Descartes, more obviously, but also what even the greats in Metaphysics like Kant, Hegel and Heidegger have done. Irrespective of the beauty, hard work, complexity, or even usefulness of their art, it is just a re-presenting, a novel bricolage of the shadow paintings already cast upon the wall. Plato remained true to his mentor in one respect: you have to leave the cave to see Truth, never mind he spent the rest of his life glorifying intro-spection and reason, pretending these are not shadows but remnants of a superior world. And, moreover, Truth is not the object that you see “out there” outside the cave—it’s too late, if your focus out there is the object, the object's “Truth” is already displaced by the shadow paintings still reflecting upon your vision, a thing, try as you might, you cannot erase. Truth is the “activity” (of) see-ing; it is the Being see-ing and aware-ing the see-ing without concern for shadows. It is not introspection. To access Truth, one must, even ever so briefly, “transcend” the cave of knowing, abiding only in be-ing. And as for our pursuit of metaphysics and other philosophy, why should there be shame in recognizing that though it is art, it is beautiful and useful, a thing out of which History has similarly constructed science and culture? We do philosophy because that is essentially all that we do, and no matter what we call it, it is what we cant stop doing: constructing meaning out of Signifiers stored in the cave, and settling upon it, from time to time, and place to place, as though it were true, and sometimes even, as though it were Truth.

looking forward to it

Sorry, my last post was intended for you.

While my specific inquiries have not been addressed in any way which closes the book for me. I recognize that it is me, who is most likely failing in my exposition, and appreciate your efforts and patience Regardless, I will re-visit Heidegger, now in the context of information you have provided to see if anything changes for me, hoping that it does. Thank you

ah! OK. Time to re-read Heidegger. I'll look closely for that. Thanks!

I don't see how Heidegger’s ontology, if we are talking about Being and Time, overcomes metaphysics. To me, it expands it, and, with the help of hindsight, not even in any radical way, but rather, in a way which might be expected following those before him like Kant, Hegel, Husserl etc. If you are willing, explain to me how his ontology transcends the conventional approaches preceding him, which ultimately amounts to constructing new expressions out of the bricolage in our minds. Like what I'm doing too. I'm not demeaning the activity, it's what we do. It's just that I'm getting the impression H's ontology enjoys some kind of privileged status when it comes to Truth, and I'd like to know: is that because H, though similarly just constructing so called truths out of Mind, has somehow transcended Mind, all of It, and a accessed Real Truth about Being? And that matters to me because I'm of the opinion that no matter how artful, the only access to (the) Truth (about) Being, is in Being.

sorry last thing, didn't even H in B and T, purport to embark upon ontology but really end up providing a philosophical reflection upon the Human as Subject, Mind as opposed to its Natural Organic Reality?

Ok, I think I understand, including how what seems like my recklessness is frustrating. I did not intend that. I respect what you're saying, and am trying to understand how it might be impact my own thinking. So, is your point about isolating ontology, to say that Fiction or not, for ontology that's not relevant? And if so, why (sincerely, not argymentively)? And if not, then why--in the context of expressing that (to keep it simple) all our experiences are Fictional if we accept that human Consciousness is limited by its own "structure," made up signifiers--does it matter to "isolate" an ontological approach? Is there something about ontology that necessarily transcends human Consciousness (given we might acknowledge that the same can't necessarily be said of metaphysics or epistemology)? Is there a reason one cannot say of ontology that any truth regarding same cannot be accessed by Language but only by being (that) Being?

I took the liberty of adding pure to ontology. Why? Because I view H as engaging in metaphysics, notwithstanding his (extremely impressive, far superior to anything I could do) effort to focus on ontology. So I'm relying upon what I presume to be, your better understanding of H and submitting that, if there is such a thing as an inquiry into the nature of Being divorced from other metaphysical, epistemological, and (I think even) psychological (in the Freudian/Lacanian sense) considerations, it ought to be differentiated, and I (lazily) selected to preface it with pure.
In any case, I found H not to be pursuing "pure" ontology.
BUT, and here was the point I guess I failed to make. If one is to pursue purely ontology: what is being; it is futile to do so with thought, or anything else which tries to gather (construct) knowledge. Because knowledge is constructed out of empty Signifiers, and while admittedly useful, will not shed an iota of Truth about the Nature of Being which can (in my estimation) only be accessed by Being.

can anyone else see the validity in this idea of "excess" in existence, especially for the human experience? — schopenhauer1

I have not been exposed to the horror writer, nor the philosohers you say influencing him. But I found your info fascinating and can relate. I'll try to be concise. However, to do that, I must oversimplify, and necessary details will inevitably have to follow should you, or anyone care.

Presume, as I do,

1. that there is a Real consciousness shared by many if not all "sophisticated" organisms, including humans. It is the natural aware-ing of our Bodies in the natural environment, motivated by natural drives, including survival, bonding, reproduction.

2. one of the characteristics of this aware-ing for many species including "pre-historic" humans was a system of "shortcuts" to trigger expedient responses akin to classical conditioning, "designed" to fast-track our drives. Images are stored in memory and are autonomously called up to trigger efficiency in response. Eg. hear a tiger roar, run. See a red berry, don't eat. The roar and the color red is a Signifier in memory called up for survival.

3. For humans only (as far as we know) this system of shortcuts/signifiers grew to an astronomical surplus level (your: "excess"). By some point pre-history becomes History and the word "tiger" Signifies in the same way the sound of a roar once did.

4. This excess of Signifiers evolved into a System with grammar/logic/reason/fantasy etc etc. And Human Consciousness emerged displacing Real consciousness, I.e., natural aware-ing with the system of Signifiers (for simplicity, "Language")

5. Human Mind, and thus, all human experience, is a structure of excess Signifiers stored in memory, "acting" autonomously to trigger the Body to respond with feelings and actions. The feelings etc in turn trigger more Signiers which, in turn trigger more feelings and actions, all of which are "experienced" in that form, and the Real aware-ing is inevitably displaced thereby. No longer are we motivated to feel and to act by natural drives; now it is tge desire of/for these Signifiers motivating us.


So yes, there is excess in the human experience relative to all other species; even those whose intelligence etc. resembles ours. We alone are motivated by the excess chatter taking place autonomously inside our bodies and believed by us to be real, essential, spiritual even, when all along it is autonomously moving Fiction.

Yes, and the "problem" with "pure" ontology as I see it, is you cannot arrive at "knowledge" of the nature of being that way. And, if that, presumably, is the goal of ontology extracted from the rest of metaphysics as I have inferred about Heidegger from your statement, then truly, what's the point? With the rest of metaphysics and with epistemology, though ultimately futile because fictional, functions are served. From my reading of Being and Time, at least, I think H does go beyond ontology, and provides a very functional report about Mind and metaphysics in general. But that's just my reading.

As best I could. I like to think that my (albeit corrupted and elementary) understanding of that, helped shape my thinking. I'm not attempting false modesty. I think that all positions, metaphysical or otherwise, are arrived at by a collective writing, and that sometimes, particularly for the metaphysical, even if the reading is impure, it may still elucidate (even if varied from the so called author's intent). So much more to say...

I'd be interested if your understanding of Heidegger might shed more light on our discussion. If so, I'd be happy to hear, and will respond tomorrow. If not, it's been a pleasure.

Sorry, the philosopher does not even see things as they are nor thing in itself. These too are constructed out of Reason and dialectic and perhaps because we intuit the Fiction and are forced to construct meaning leading us to such concepts. But really, even there, we are in the cave, using Fictional tools to excavating fiction.

Well, yes, I should've clarified. "Reality" too is a fiction. Whatever Reality is, we can only know it as a fiction. Within human Mind alone is reality even spoken of, and so, I speak of it. I cannot cross thr gap between Fiction and Reality while remaining in Fiction. When I speak of Reality I am already beyond/alienated from being (Reality. Although, I have no business saying so). I apologize for how frustrating it may seem. But it is what it is.

As for Plato. Yes. And had he remained true to Socrates, he might have concluded that the shadow paintings are Fictions, and that upon ascension from the cave the philosopher sees no forms, no Signifiers, no thing, no ideal of a thing (no thingness). Instead, the philosopher just is, is just see-ing.

I'm submitting that everything going on in the human Mind is Fiction. So yes, Language, too, and thing, and thing-ness. There is Real but that can only be accessed in being; once knowing is engaged, it is ultimately knowing Fiction. Yes, of course, this too. Then what's the point? 1. Exactly, but 2. Remember, there is Reality; it's accessed by being, not knowing. My Body is Real, and to access its reality, there is nothing I need to do but be (it's reality) 3. With respect to Mind, which for we humans, displaces that reality, and, with respect to the topic at hand--metaphysics, and "knowing,"--just because it is ultimately fabricated out of empty images, Signifiers stored in memory, and "made" "real" by processes of dialectic, fabricating meaning, never discovering, but, rather, always only settling upon true (belief), doesn't mean it is not functional. To wit: the wheel, rocket, democracy, and economy, the theories of evolution and relativity, plus the billions of other things, so-called good and so-called bad, constructed out of these images stored in memory and settled upon for their function.

The difference between so-called hallucinatory (incl dreams) and so called real perception is that generally* in the former Mind constructs experience out of available images stored in memory, and in the latter Mind constructs experience out of available images stored in memory, triggered by sensation of something in the physical world. And, yes, "experiences" involving/derived from concepts (classical examples, "I" think, therefore "I" am, and most everything appearing in this Forum) fall under the first, hallucinatory. *there are complexities and qualifications

Good point. So simple, but something I haven't thought about properly. One I'll consider more thoroughly. Especially its implications on my personal interests about human Mind and the status/role/nature of logic. Thank you.

I see the relevance of your point, though indirect. It remains, then, the answer to whether or not, as you put it, we can derive mathematics from logic alone, requires at the very final stage at least, a leap from logic. Some say no, dissenters say yes, in the end, a leap must get one there.

Thank you for the clarification on Godel. I see that.


My question was twofold.
1. Isn't it futile to "make sense" of paradoxes?
2. Dont paradoxes expose the limitation(s) of Logic (here, in pursuit of absolutes)?

I'll presume your answer is no; and therefore, you think that we can make sense of paradoxes, or, at least that it's a worthwhile pursuit; and, either they don't expose the limitations of logic or logic is not limited in its pursuits.

If that's the case, I'm interested in understanding your reasons.

Am I viewing the problem too simplistically? Isn't the point of the liars paradox, and all others, not in trying to make sense out of them, but in the very thing they expose? That is, that we can never conclude absolutes in our ideas, thoughts, Language, when our strongest tool for such conclusions (Reason/Logic) are threatened by fallibility. The mathematical paradoxes (forgive me, I am far from expertise) like Russell's and Gödel's expose that same threat, I.e., we cannot, using our most powerful language, conclude absolutely.

Understood (or, in fairness, maybe not) But if feelings are not, in their "essence" the raw binary, and meaning is not tacked on by thinking, where does the meaning come from? If the feeling triggers/gives rise to meaning, or thinking, no matter how seemingly immediate, isn't there a split? Is our confusion not just a necessary/functional illusion?

true, and so has history written us.

I would reflect on the Bodily feeling presently "occurring" or released (?) during what one might interpret as anger or as hatred. Presumably, both would be felt as, for lack of a better word, "unpleasant," subject to possible varying degrees or subtle undectable differences (if any. maybe degree of unpleasantness is the only difference). Perhaps, from the Body's perspective that is the extent that our "purest" most raw reflection, can tell us about these so-called emotions, i.e., that they are unpleasant bodily feelings varying only in degrees of unpleasantness,
suggesting that at the purest "level" of feelings, or in Truth, we can only access the binary, pleasant/unpleasant. It is only when the Language of human Consciousness enters the picture that the Fictional emotions, anger or hatred, are constructed. That is, to answer the question, what is anger? Or what is hatred? Or what is the difference? Anger and hatred in Truth, do not exist. They are, in truth, unpleasant feelings of the Body. However, out of, or to, these real feelings, we construct our Narratives in human Mind, those fabricated Narratives, being what we collectively call emotions, and, being constructed by fleeting Language, and not actually real organic processes (which are restricted to the binary pleasant/unpleasant) we only think these emotions are Real, their differences relevant, etc. In otherwords anger and hatred are only constructed Fictions which come to displace the real feelings which cannot be accessed beyond how we feel, cannot be discussed in truth beyond the simple binary, pleasant or unpleasant.

Time is the illusion which necessarily emerges out of the illusion of change. Reality is beyond both something and nothing. Both something and nothing, like time and change arise as constructions in human connsciousness.

Count Timothy, sorry, I haven't figured out how to reply directly.

I agree that belief, and more specifically, belief in Truth, is functional, even functionally necessary within the context of our uniquely constructed Fictional world. What I'm saying, and particularly with respect to the original post regarding metaphysics and its pursuit, is can we recognize that, while functional (the foundation of arts, sciences, etc.), it cannot do what it tries to claim: it cannot uncover any iota of Real Truth. Real Truth is in Being, not knowing (knowing, being a thing we construct and believe, or settle upon, following a dialectical-like process which takes place only within the Fiction and applying only the tools of that Fiction). Or, in other words, "yes, everything I am saying is a lie, including this" is a trap we cannot exit. But the lies are nevertheless useful, since that's where we inescapably find our "selves"

To answer your last question first since you're right, in my thinking, that is always implied. If any human (necessarily meaning humans with that seemingly unique human Consciousness) pursuit including expressions are necessarily Fictional, then so is This expression, and so on. But the so called liar's paradox, paradoxically affirms my hypothesis (and paradoxically, I have to assume my hypothesis is valid for this present point to work). It reveals a defect that (yes, I am necessarily also that defect, always implied) one would think doesn't belong in Truth. Paradoxes reveal a crack in the foundation...therefore of Fiction. Truth (if we are even qualified to address It, and, we're not) wouldn't have any cracks.

As for your reference earlier to my suggestion about Language. Sorry, I don't doubt you were clear, I rather lack the confidence to be sure in my reading: are you suggesting Language and, I would presume, Reason, pre-exist their emergence in the human experience? In Kantian (and I think Platonic, see the slave and the triangle, anamnesis ) terms, are you suggesting Reason and Language are Real (even, have a higher place in the hierarchy of Reality than human perception, for e.g.) and that, even if you were to concede that all of our experiences are Fictional, Language and Reason were already there to build that, otherwise, how did we get to our seemingly pure ideas? If that's what you're suggesting, pardon my simplistic terms, this is what I think, to keep it simple. Before Language developed into the very structure of human Consciousness, it existed as images stored in memory and used by the organically aware human animal to organically trigger conditioned responses helpful to survival and prosperity. A roar means run, no need to "think" about it. Language and reason developed out of that X means Y (note X isnt really Y). And there's no room for any explanation of that process of evolution here. But that process is Real. However, the idea that Language, and especially sophisticated reason, pre-exist our Fictional Structure in which they were both incubated and reached their current form, I think is a falsehood we are compelled to believe in order to support that fictional structure. Anyway, that's me making assumptions about your point, and trying to express mine briefly. I hope I haven't frustrated you by missing yours entirely.

Apologies that I cannot briefly do so. But to put it overly-simply, each of metaphysics (and ontology, for that matter), and the objects of its pursuit, and the person pushing are inescapably bound by (very simply) Language (Structures made of Signifiers stored in memory, operating under a system of rules, having an affect on the Body). It requires no proof here that Language isn't the "thing" it only re-presents the "thing." Thus, it is irredeemably alienated from the Truth at the instance of its manifestation or use. All human experiences, including the noblest pursuits in pure reflection, pure reason, metaphysics, are necessarily bound in Language, where the Truth is displaced (traditionally, "mediated") by what only pretends to be the Truth, or, Fiction.