Please explain how you know that something like the following quote below won't happen again later today.

Like most people, you may be coming to your position based on the current geo-political situation. You may not be taking in to account that the current geo-political situation may be totally irrelevant. In fact, I know you're not taking that in to account, or you wouldn't be posting as you are.

Speaking of which, let's remind ourselves who has control over 90%+ of the world's nukes. Putin, the world's leading gangster, and Trump, a wacko in the White House whose own employees are scrambling around trying to figure out how to get rid of him before he does something insane.

Like almost everybody, you aren't using reason and thinking for yourself, but are instead referencing authority in the form of the group consensus. You look around you and see that all the big shots of various flavors are complacent, and so you understandably feel it's ok for you to be complacent too.

Agreeing with me would require you to grasp that we are like passengers on a bus traveling down a steep mountain road, with no bus driver in attendance. This is understandably something few of us want to see. I don't want to see it myself.

================

From the New Yorker article....

On June 3, 1980, at about two-thirty in the morning, computers at the National Military Command Center, beneath the Pentagon, at the headquarters of the North American Air Defense Command (NORAD), deep within Cheyenne Mountain, Colorado, and at Site R, the Pentagon’s alternate command post center hidden inside Raven Rock Mountain, Pennsylvania, issued an urgent warning: the Soviet Union had just launched a nuclear attack on the United States. The Soviets had recently invaded Afghanistan, and the animosity between the two superpowers was greater than at any other time since the Cuban Missile Crisis.

U.S. Air Force ballistic-missile crews removed their launch keys from the safes, bomber crews ran to their planes, fighter planes took off to search the skies, and the Federal Aviation Administration prepared to order every airborne commercial airliner to land.

President Jimmy Carter’s national-security adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski, was asleep in Washington, D.C., when the phone rang. His military aide, General William Odom, was calling to inform him that two hundred and twenty missiles launched from Soviet submarines were heading toward the United States. Brzezinski told Odom to get confirmation of the attack. A retaliatory strike would have to be ordered quickly; Washington might be destroyed within minutes. Odom called back and offered a correction: twenty-two hundred Soviet missiles had been launched.

Brzezinski decided not to wake up his wife, preferring that she die in her sleep. As he prepared to call Carter and recommend an American counterattack, the phone rang for a third time. Odom apologized—it was a false alarm. An investigation later found that a defective computer chip in a communications device at NORAD headquarters had generated the erroneous warning. The chip cost forty-six cents. — The New Yorker — The New Yorker

But if we apply - and rely on - logic, we must follow it to its conclusion, even if we'd rather not. And logic says that a plausible theory that can't be falsified or disproven is (at least until the arrival of new evidence) acceptable for use, and may not be casually dismissed. — Pattern-chaser

There are often different ways the logic calculation can be run.

On the one hand, I personally agree with your quote above. I think I do so because the possibility that incredible theories can turn out to be true is interesting, exciting.

On the other hand, some people will disagree with the quote. They may do so because, for them, it's more comfortable to live in a world where things are largely nailed down. For them, even if we don't have a particular answer it's necessary to feel there is some reliable method of finding answers.

In the absence of any hard answer it can be logical to put the focus on managing our emotional experience.

Political bias is solved by the vast number of media outlets available. Such variety hasn't always existed, so we should be thankful for it.

The bias we should be concerned about is the bias shared by almost every media outlet, the bias for drama. Most media is ad supported. That is, they aren't really in the news business, they're in the advertising business. Ad prices are heavily related to the size of the audience, and this pushes most media outlets towards the lowest common denominator. If it bleeds it leads, etc.

This bias for drama has some dangerous consequences.

As example, terrorists are in partnership with mass media. The terrorists provide the needed drama, and in return the media provides the terrorists with billions of dollars of free advertising. Everybody wins, except the victims.

A certain politician who is a ruthless business man from New York City, arguably the mass media capital of the world, has from his experience realistically understood that media is not a public service but rather a profit driven business, and he's worked that business model to the highest office in the land. Like the terrorists, he does his job by providing the media with a steady stream of drama and is rewarded by the media (even those who truly hate him) with the power that comes from being constantly in the cultural spotlight.

The best example I've seen of this bias for drama happened about a mile from my house. Remember that Florida preacher who threatened to burn the Koran? He was a complete total nobody, but he understood the bias for drama system and worked it, and became an international figure.

Yes, given the complex but fragile technology we have built, civilization could collapse -- almost literally 'over night'. — Bitter Crank

Yes, that's it. How much food do any of us have on hand in our house? Civilization begins to collapse at the moment we conclude we won't be able to replenish those supplies in a legal manner.

And what makes you think that you're going to land a spot in one of those caves? — Bitter Crank

Um, what makes you think I think that???

Because there's a vast multitude of topics in philosophy to write about, and that's just one topic, and it's one which is associated more with politics, relating to national defence and foreign affairs. — S

Ok, I give up, you win...

Oh, and where do you get the idea that humans are civilised? — Pattern-chaser

Well, you got me there. I guess I meant, in comparison to living in caves, which is where we'll be shortly after nuclear war.

Your concerns are real, and serious. But nuclear war is just of of many possible hazards that we humans have invented. It probably isn't wise or rational of us to concentrate on only one. — Pattern-chaser

Oh darn, and you were doing so good there. :smile:

None of the other possible hazards come close to the scale and pressing nature of nuclear weapons. It would be wise and rational for us to concentrate on the most immediate threat.

If you were holding a gun to my head, a gun which could go off at any moment, perhaps even by mistake, please name any other issue which should receive more of my attention. Would you judge me rational if I ignored the gun and instead focused on writing a book about Plato?

See? It's the simplest thing.

With the balance of power in the world shifting, liberal capitalist democracies are coming under stress as excess wealth is diminishing. And so more and more people are left behind, and the story is becoming harder and harder to sell. — ChatteringMonkey

To quibble a bit, I'm not sure excess wealth is diminishing. If I understand correctly, it's more a case that wealth is being ever more unfairly distributed.

As example, see this article by the Washington Post, which is entitled "The richest 1 percent now owns more of the country’s wealth than at any time in the past 50 years".

The article contains this astounding fact...

"The top 20 percent of households actually own a whopping 90 percent of the stuff in America"

To put it another way, you and me and pretty much everybody we know are squabbling over the last 10 percent of the economy. And then we are puzzled as to why our kids have to take on massive debt to get through college etc.

My wife and I love a 40 hour series called The Tudors which dramatizes the time of King Henry the Eighth. There are of course a very small class of nobles at the top, and vast populations of poverty stricken below. It's remarkable how little has changed over the last 500 years.

What has changed is that the nobles have become much more sophisticated in their operations. They got rid of the king above them (in western democracies) and they have melted in to the background so they face less of a threat from below as well. They are still the nobles, they just aren't called that any more. As evidence, again from the Washington Post article...

The wealthiest 1 percent of American households own 40 percent of the country's wealth

I don't think the split is only or even mostly simply due to a division in ideas, it think it's more a question of economical and social position, and in-groups vs.out-groups. Ideologies are mixed in there, sure, but I think your are missing a vital element if you just gloss over social and economic realities. — ChatteringMonkey

You are of course entitled to define the scope you wish to address. I was responding to "I've been trying to understand the essence of the political split". If you instead prefer to travel only part way to the bottom line, ok, I don't object, please proceed.

So, to steer back towards the topic of the thread...

Are philosophers of above average intelligence? I would agree this may often be true, if we define intelligence as a particular set of skills related to analyzing abstractions and perhaps writing. So if we were to define intelligence and philosophy in this limited manner, I could vote yes.

This isn't the yardstick I measure by, but I would agree it is the yardstick many people are using, and I would agree that I don't personally own the yardstick.

All he really means is that he has spent a few months looking into a number of websites which contain writings by contemporary academic philosophers, and he found little to nothing relating to nuclear weapons. — S

Right. And why is that? Why aren't I finding extensive discussion of that subject on EVERY philosophy site?

Everything built over the last 500 years, and everything that could be built over the next 500 years, could collapse without warning at any moment. Not a theory, not hysterical speculation, but a very widely agreed upon proven real world fact. And this is judged to be just one of thousand topics that might be addressed. I'm sorry, that's simply logically indefensible, if one defines philosophy as the application of reason to human affairs.

But of course, there is no law of nature which requires us to define philosophy in that manner.

That is, instead of being the result of a reasoned and impartial analysis, it suits your agenda to make such claims, as it would raise the status of the topic of nuclear weapons, and it tries to force a certain way of thinking about them to the exclusion of alternatives, which you cast as invalid, and even as lunacy. — S

Apologies, truly meaning no personal offense for my quarrel is not with you as an individual, and I do thank you for responding to my challenge. I'm responding to the quoted section above because it pretty accurately represents the quality of thinking even the highest ranking professionals display in their work.

Observe how you characterize my challenge as not being a reasoned analysis, while you offer no reasoned analysis of your own. No where do you make a case for why it is rational for an imminent mortal threat to modern civilization to be considered just one a thousand issues. You simply wave your hand and dismiss the challenge in the laziest manner using the classic "above it all" defense which academics so love to hide behind.

But you are right in that:

1) It suits my agenda to make such claims.

2) I seek to raise the status of the nuclear weapons topic.

3) I do try to force a way of thinking (called reason) to the exclusion of alternatives (such as self delusional self flattery).

4) And yes, I do characterize the lack of attention to the topic of nuclear weapons as invalid lunacy.

You have as yet not identified the irrationality which does plague my position on this issue. And that is the delusional faith based assumption that philosophers are capable of reason. I find myself guilty of a wishful thinking perspective unsupported by any credible evidence.

What philosophers are capable of is fancy talk. Sometimes quite articulate fancy talk. Some philosophers are skilled at the philosophy business. Many philosophers have a talent for projecting an image of intellectual authority which is persuasive to their audience. These are real skills which require considerable work to develop, so I am not calling philosophers stupid. I am instead claiming that, by and large generally speaking on average, they are not capable of reason.

Jake, that is I think going to far in reducing everything to its essence — ChatteringMonkey

Ok, please explain why.

My explanation of the relevance would be as follows. If we see that division arises from thought itself, it logically follows that none of the ideologies being earnestly sold as the solution to division will work.

All throughout history both political and religious people have offered many different ideologies as "the answer". In some cases such as Marxism and Christianity for example, very large numbers of people have embraced the suggested ideology fully. And no matter what the ideology is, no matter what the time and place, no ideology ever leads to an end to division and conflict.

If we accurately see the real source of division then all ideologies are put in a more realistic perspective, which means we take them less seriously, leading to a reduction in polarization. You know, if we see that my theory and yours will lead to roughly the same place, there's less reason for us to fight over our theories. Or at least the volume of the conflict should be reduced.

On the other hand, if I think my theory is the "one true way" and you think your theory is the "one true way" then the stakes are perceived to be much higher, thus fueling the conflict between our visions.

I think there are many experiences that do not have concepts attached to them. — Blue Lux

Yes, the concepts get attached AFTER the actual experience.

You're walking down the hall and someone emerges in to the hall from a room. You look to see this addition to the scene and for a moment you are just looking, observing, absorbing data. And then your mind begins organizing the data, ie. thinking.

It's easier to see this process if we use exaggerated examples. You're walking down the hall and someone sets off a firecracker behind you. This could be a mortal threat, so your mind pushes the thinker and thinking aside, no time for that right now.

I've been trying to understand the essence of the political split in several western democracies... as philosophers do trying to reduce everything to its essence — ChatteringMonkey

The bottom line fundamental source of all division in human affairs, both personally and socially, is the nature of thought, the way it works.

Jung thought extensively on nuclear war. — Blue Lux

I don't dispute the subject has been addressed here and there, that's true. The larger reality is that the vast majority of philosophers (professional and amateur) the vast majority of the time have pretty much no interest in the subject at all. I'm proposing that addressing the primary threat to human civilization only here and there now and again is not rational. It is instead literally insane. Insane. Literally insane. Not super smart savvy analytical intellectual blah blah blah, but insane.

Thus, if we were to judge philosophy as a whole to be a rational exercise, we would have to narrowly define philosophy as the study of the famous philosophers etc. If we were to define philosophy as the application of reason to human situations, very few people claiming to be philosophers would qualify as rational by that definition.

Perhaps you are not looking deep enough into philosophers. — Blue Lux

The problem is instead that I've examined enough philosophy to see through the self flattering poses that the philosophy community is trying to sell itself. And for me personally, the problem is that I'm stupid enough to think that anything I might write on the subject will have any effect on anybody. So, we are brothers in irrationality.

What part of philosophy is pure mental exercise and what part is our life discipline? — BrianW

There appear to be many conflicting definitions of philosophy.

For some, philosophy is entering the conversations started by famous philosophers, reading their books, trying to understand the ideas presented, offering one's own analysis etc.

For others, myself included, philosophy is better described as the application of reason to human situations. In this definition, a person who can acquire intellectual fame, but not successfully manage their own household, would not be considered a very good philosopher.

I've been somewhat obsessed with this distinction since spending recent months exploring sites by academic philosophers. What I found is that academics can excel at analyzing the famous philosophers, but appear to have close to zero interest in nuclear weapons. From my point of view, this makes them successful academics, typically good writers, and piss poor philosophers.

But it depends on how one defines philosophy.

I think each of us has our own particular blend of smart and stupid. Being good at philosophy just means we have a knack for processing abstractions, and perhaps a knack for writing, and doesn't necessarily say anything about our overall intelligence. It seems that people who are especially gifted in one direction tend to make up for that by being especially dense in other directions.

My wife couldn't write a philosophy post to save her life. But then, she figured out that writing philosophy posts is a silly waste of time about 50 years ago, and I'm still working on catching up, and will probably never get there.

If you looked at her writing next to mine you would conclude that I'm the better philosopher. If you looked at her life next to mine you would come to the opposite conclusion. :smile:

I'm not offended, though there you go again with your mechanical analogy. — unenlightened

It seems your concern here is primarily aesthetic. Ok, each of us is entitled to our own taste in words, no problem.

So, by analogy, one might wonder what depression is a sensible response to. — unenlightened

Hmm, good question...

Physical pain is a signal the body sends us to alert us to a problem area that may require our attention. Mental pain may perform the same function.

So, in the context of this discussion, how do we tell what is nonsense and what is not? That's rather the core of this discussion. How do we tell, logically and rationally, whether a topic is nonsense? — Pattern-chaser

I would start with this. Do we need to know if a theory is nonsense? If there is no pressing need to answer the question, I'd vote for wide ranging open mindedness. Most of today's science was a crackpot theory at some point.

Yes. That is what I was getting at: moving beyond the duality; which is a nice place to visit, but I wouldn’t want to live there! — 0 thru 9

I heard a story on NPR about a lady who had an accident that put her in a coma. When she emerged from the coma she couldn't form even short term memories. Thus, she was forced in to "be here now" on a 24/7 basis. This of course created many practical problems for her. Eventually they were resolved as her memory ability gradually returned.

She was glad to have her regular life back, but also deeply missed the "be here now" immersion, calling it the most profound and beautiful experience of her life.

I found it a very interesting story, and regret I can not link you to it.

I agree with most of what you say, but I wish you would drop the machine analogy... — unenlightened

Would it offend you to call the digestive system a machine? Is "machine" not new agey enough?

Anyway, I think you get the point, however imperfectly I've made it. The mind is another organ of the body which can be managed with simple, direct, mechanical methods, just as we manage other processes of the body. This is good news.

Diet, exercise, yoga, massage all influence the mind in positive ways and are readily available to pretty much anyone who wishes to exert such influence. Certain drugs in certain circumstances can also assist those suffering from depression. These types of mechanical assistance are available to almost anyone, without the need of any sophisticated psychological understandings. This is good news.

This is good news because unlike sophisticated psychological understandings, such mechanical techniques are very widely accessible, and either free or (usually) affordable.

This is also good news because the ready availability of such techniques can help us understand how serious we are about addressing suffering. I'm not making a moral argument about how serious someone should be, I'm just suggesting that clarity is usually a good place to start.

This is a philosophy forum after all, so a focus on clarity seems appropriate.

The source of suffering is desire. — Posty McPostface

And the source of desire is the experience of "me", of being divided from everything else. And the source of that experience of division is thought.

Psychology is a surface level examination of symptoms. Underneath the surface lies a mechanical process of the body, thought, which operates by a process of conceptual division. That process creates the "me" an experience of being divided from everything else, which gives rise to fear, which gives rise to desire, conflict and suffering.

No amount of fancy talk however clever can change the underlying mechanical process which is the source of suffering, just as no amount of knowledge about food can end our need to eat.

Everything we do and experience, both negative and positive, involves thinking, — Janus

I'm sorry, that simply isn't true. We take in data from the environment (experience) and then we process that data (thinking). You can see this for yourself if you look closely enough.

You're sitting at your desk reading this post. Someone enters the room behind you. You turn to see who it is and in that moment of looking, of observation, you're just taking in data, you're experiencing. And then your mind shifts to processing the data that's just been received. The person is identified and judged to be welcomed or not etc.

Our minds routinely shift back and forth between these two modes, data intake and data processing, experience and thinking, all day long everyday.

Many or most of the activities that we find engaging involve shifting our focus out of thinking and in to experience. Surfing was offered as an example above. There are a million others.

so it seems that what you are advocating is somewhat over-simplistic. — Janus

It's over simplistic in comparison to determined efforts to make this as complicated as possible so that we can do more thinking, and position ourselves as experts, gurus, philosophers, insightful people etc.

Imagine the person who is physically hungry. They can read an endless number of books about food and digestion. They can develop a thousand theories on those subjects. They can debate their theories with other theorists. All these books and theories may indeed be quite complicated and sophisticated etc.

But in the end the hungry person is only going to be fulfilled by one thing. Eating. Is this a simplistic fact? I suppose it is. It's also the reality of the situation.

Imagine the mind as a machine, for that is what it is. If a person isn't interested in finding the on/off button for this machine, they have no business presenting themselves as sophisticated users of this device.

Hi 0-9,

I don't object to the challenge at all, entirely appropriate on a philosophy forum. However, instead of a vague wandering concern about possible fallacies, perhaps you could simply address the bolded assertion itself?

So basically... why and how are your thoughts and theories exempt from this “illusion”? — 0 thru 9

They aren't exempt. Which is why I keep arguing for a shift from theory to experience. Above I suggested that the three words "be here now" are more useful than a library full of Krishnamurti books, and that applies to the 4 billion Jake posts as well. :smile:

As I see it the key issue is, what is the source of suffering?

If one feels the source of suffering is bad thought content, then a philosophical investigation such as is being conducted here is an appropriate response.

1) As part of such a philosophical investigation I'm asking, where is the evidence that ANY philosophy or ideology ever invented has ended human suffering?

2 As part of such a philosophical investigation I'm observing that human suffering has been universal in all times and places. Doesn't that suggest a source which is also universal?

As I see it, I am participating in the philosophical investigation members are insisting on, and the problem we're having is that members don't like where such an investigation inevitably leads. I can't help where the investigation leads, I'm just following the logic.

As I see it, members are interested in exploring many different approaches, on the condition that any approach must somehow involve philosophy, ie. more thinking. Members are willing to conduct a philosophical investigation only up to the point that such an investigation becomes inconvenient to the investigation itself. And to my mind, that's not actually philosophy at all.

As I see it, the problem we're sharing here is that philosophy nerd people like us (definitely including me) tend to be over thinkers. And so we want to solve the problems we've caused ourselves by overthinking, with more thinking. :smile: This is very much like the alcoholic who wants to cure themselves using a case of scotch.

So to clarify, I’d say that I agree with the doctrine of the “two truths”, the relative and the absolute / ultimate. Half of our reality seems to be the separate nature and reality of each individual. The hidden or invisible or perhaps unknown half might be the indivisibility of nature and reality. — 0 thru 9

The indivisible single unified reality is the fact. The appearance of separation is an illusion created by the divisive nature of thought.

Imagine that we were born wearing tinted sunglasses. Everywhere we went reality would look tinted. The tint would not be a property of reality, but rather of the tool being used to observe reality. If everybody was wearing the tinted sunglasses all the time it would easy to get confused about this.

To the degree we attempt to analyze the illusion of division with thought we are adding fuel to that which is creating the illusion.

As example, consider Christianity, a well intentioned attempt to overcome division and conflict via an ideology, ie. a collection of thoughts. And what was the result? More division and conflict.

We could reason that the resulting division and conflict was a result of flaws in Christian ideology, in the content of those particular thoughts. But this theory wouldn't explain why EVERY ideology ever invented has inevitably resulted in that ideology subdividing in to competing internal factions, ie. more division and conflict.

Three aspects of identification: Separation — unenlightened

To be more precise, an illusion of separation.

Thought operates through a process of division, thus creating "me" experienced as being divided from "everything else".

Thought operates through a process of division, thus creating the thinker experienced as being divided from the thought.

Our identity is as "me", experienced as a separate thing which is divided both from the external world and internal world.

The separation is only conceptual, not real. It's an illusion.

As example, the word "tree" proposes a separate object. Conceptually this is useful. But the reality is that the tree is intimately connected with everything else. The boundary between "tree" and "not tree" is a convenient human invention, as is the boundary between "me" and "not me".

If you study the above theory very very carefully over many many years you will accomplish something truly remarkable...

Nothing. :smile:

No, this is about disidentification.... — Posty McPostface

It's about disidentification THEORY.

What did you get out of Krishnamurti? At times I found his writings too wordy and imprecise. — Posty McPostface

At the time he served my need to analyze things to the 99th degree. I wasn't ready for simpleness yet. I'm still not and never will be in a complete way, such is my nature. I still do the theory analyzing for entertainment, but now I know it doesn't matter much.

Yes, Krishnamurti circles endlessly round and round, never quite delivering "the answer". This is frustrating for many people, agreed. His teaching style is much like the philosophy professor who answers every question with another question, forcing the student to do his own work. It's perhaps helpful to realize that JK was from another time and place, India early 20th century, and he's kind of out of date in the sense that he doesn't really match up very well with today's American style fast paced instant gratification culture.

Imho, Eckhardt Tolle has done a good job of updating the message for today's audience, though the new age hoopla surrounding him might make some people puke.

I see so theory can be a distraction from inner peace and enlightenment. — Posty McPostface

If we feel that inner conflict is a result of bad thought content then we would attempt to fix that thought content through philosophy and analysis, such as dominates this thread (and about a billion others).

If we feel that inner conflict arises from the medium of thought itself, then it should become clear that adding even more thought to the pile is essentially a process of poring gasoline on the fire.

Imho, enlightenment is a bunch of baloney. If it exists at all, it is so rare to be essentially irrelevant to the human experience.

So, then let's start with this if both can't be had. — Posty McPostface

Ok then, so here's a little story.

When I was in college I read a lot of Jiddu Krishnamurti, a speaker/writer who addresses these kinds of topics. His career lasted something like 60+ years and he was quite prolific, so there was a lot to read.

Around the same time the book Be Here Now was published by Ram Dass. The book looked much like a children's comic book so I thumbed through it once and then dismissed it because after all, I was a college sophomore, I was an intellectual, I don't read baby books!! :smile:

Here we see a comparison between tons of theory by Krishnamurti, and the theory boiled down to the three simple words "Be Here Now" by Ram Dass.

Thus, my question to you.

THEORY: If theory is what you want there is tons of it available, and you could easily spend your entire life reading it, as many already have. Krishnamurti alone could keep you busy for years, and he might be worth a look, if it's theory that you want. As you've seen above, the theory can be quite entertaining for those of us with nerd minds. I still find it interesting as you can see. But...

EXPERIENCE: The three words "be here now" from Ram Dass are an extremely more efficient way to proceed towards experience. And putting the theory so concisely is very much in the spirit of the experience itself, whereas theorists like Krishnamurti (and this post!) are essentially heading in the opposite direction.

How people might answer your questions in this thread and elsewhere will depend a great deal on what your goal actually is. And whether you should reach your goal will depend a great deal on whether you know what your goal is. As example, do we want to read about sex, or have sex? Whatever the goal might be, it's going to help a lot to know what the goal really is. So if you want to do philosophy,this is how you might proceed, clarify your goal, get clear on where exactly it is that you're trying to go.

In most things in life theory is the necessary first step towards the experience. We have to read the car repair manual and understand it before proceeding to repair the car. Thus, an interest in theory here is very understandable.

But this subject doesn't really work like that. A little theory might be useful as a kind of circus to get the attention of compulsive over thinkers like you and me, a kind of bait. But the theory very quickly becomes more of an excuse standing in the way of the experience rather than a path to the experience.

So, here's my theory.

1) If it's theory you want, enjoy the vast pile of it already available.

2) If it's peace you want, proceed towards "be here now" by the shortest possible path.

3) If you don't know what you want, you probably won't get it.

Ok.. what about being hit by a bolt of lightning? That’s a problem not made of thought. — 0 thru 9

That's a situation. It becomes a problem when we conclude (ie. think) that being alive is better than being dead based on, um, no evidence of any kind. :smile:

Both. — Posty McPostface

Both = Neither.

’ve never heard “thought” referred to as a “bodily function” before. But I appreciate creative writing. — 0 thru 9

Well, it's not really creative writing, it's literally true.

However, I would agree that thought is intimately related to many if not all problems one experiences. — 0 thru 9

Not intimately related. Problems are literally made of thought. Situations exist independently of our minds. Problems are our relationship with a situation, ie. thoughts.

But how? How do you disidentification yourself from thought? — Posty McPostface

Maybe this will help?

What is your top priority? Pick one of the following:

1) Understand detachment theory.
2) Experience detachment.

This is a philosophy forum so if your priority is to understand the theory that would be appropriate here of course.

However, you've also referenced your personal life. If managing that is your priority then you should know that understanding the theory won't do much good other than perhaps provide some modest intellectual entertainment.

I'm not making any judgment about what your priority should be because that is of course your choice to make, your business. I am however urging you to sidestep "cake and eat it too" answers like "both" and instead pick one of the choices above as priority to focus on. The reasoning here is that we'd be unlikely to reach our goal if we don't know what our goal is.

What is the primary purpose of this thread from your point of view?

1) Understanding detachment theory.
2) Experiencing detachment.

But how? How do you disidentification yourself from thought? — Posty McPostface

Here's another try. Let's imagine you asked, "how can I be a great guitar player?" The answer would be that you not worry about being great just yet, and spend a great deal of time mastering very basic aspects of the guitar.

In that spirit, I would suggest you might stop trying to leap frog in to "enlightenment" in a single step and instead focus on very basic things. Diet and exercise are great places to start. Yoga and massage are highly recommended. Make your body as happy as you reasonably can, and that will create good foundation for the things you wish to do in your mind.

So if there is a way to completely scrub the mind free of thought for at least a short time, then that could be worth having. — 0 thru 9

A lack of precision in my words above may have given the impression that I'm arguing for a "mind free of thought". What I meant to suggest, and should have said more better :smile: is to enhance our ability to manage thought. That's a more realistic goal, a more practical plan, something that can be acted on immediately. Again, we generally take such a common sense, practical, ongoing management approach with other functions of the body, and no one has presented a convincing argument as to why we shouldn't do the same with the bodily function we call thought.

I must say the same about your untenable argument against thought itself, unfortunately. I’m sympathetic to it, but as of yet still unconvinced. Keep trying though if you’d like, for I think it an interesting discussion. — 0 thru 9

I would agree from long experience that tracing the problem back to it's source in the medium of thought is not especially useful, because what almost everybody prefers to do is debate at the level of the content of thought. So for example, I'd suggest that taking up yoga would be far more useful than my intellectual analysis of the problem. But intellectually, within that limited sphere, I agree it's interesting. It surely is to me obviously.

The best I seem to be able to do at the moment in terms of persuading you that human suffering arises from the way thought itself operates is to point to the universality of human suffering. Perhaps we need another thread on the nature of thought so we don't further clog this thread with that subject?

I thought identification with thought was the issue here. — Posty McPostface

Ok, if that's working for you, go for it.

You’re the whole world. You are everything, all mass and all energy... everything you see, everything that is... that is your true bottomline identify. — 0 thru 9

I agree with this intellectually. Regrettably, that doesn't help much because intellectualism is a weak stew indeed.

What is more helpful is to experience what you're referring to. And that can't be done to any significant degree within the medium of thought for the simple reason that thought operates by a process of division. So when we think grand thoughts about our oneness with reality or god etc what we're really doing is trying to achieve unity using a tool whose explicit purpose is to divide. Very understandable, not very logical.

History has debated which way of thinking about unity is the best, thus the various competing religions etc. The problem here is that all ways of thinking about unity are made of thought, and it is the medium of thought itself which is creating the illusion that we are separate.

The problem is that the future is always oppressing us — Metaphysician Undercover

The future is not oppressing us. The future doesn't even exist. Our RELATIONSHIP with the future is the issue, and we do have some level of control over that.

it is clear that thinking is not the source of suffering. — Metaphysician Undercover

Put more precisely, it's not clear to you. And to be fair, not clear to very many people, including some very bright folks.

But anyway, such an esoteric debate is perhaps interesting, but not really that important. What's important is to grab whatever real world practical solutions are available to us and make the best use of them.

We don't have to be enemies, because I'm not disagreeing with you. — unenlightened

I don't consider you or anybody else here an enemy. We wouldn't be enemies if you were disagreeing with me, which after all is kind of our job on a philosophy forum.

I'm merely pointing out that good advice that would work if it was taken is not taken because the problem prevents it, — unenlightened

Yes, surely that is very often the case. We've got one of those cases in our family, so I know what you mean. This person has been hysterical literally since the day she was born, so obviously there's more going on than just being lazy and whiny.

I'm not proposing that I have a "one true way" cure for anybody and everybody. I'm just attempting to add something to the conversation that typically isn't already there, with the hope that somebody might find it somewhat useful.

There's a pattern of socially acceptable ways the group consensus tells us we should relate to folks with such issues. If a suffering person wishes to intersect with this common wisdom, ok, they should give it a try. If it works, I'm all for it.

So while having no argument with any of that, it's also clear that the group consensus wisdom which is readily available in a million places is not working for some. When I see people start conversations such as this I assume they are doing so because the group consensus approach is not working for them. And so I attempt to put something else on the table as best I can. I obviously have no control over whether such efforts will work, I only have control over whether I make the effort.

This is called 'depression' in the trade. — unenlightened

And this is called sanctimonious lecturing in the trade. :smile: