Indians.

Humans can be describes as having an inherent need to refer to every item of experience as an ‘either or’ dichotomy purely because it allows us to navigate through the world not because there is any concrete distinction. When opposing forces collide we either ignore it, don’t notice it or create a new dichotomy from it (aka a paradigm shift).

As in conflict with the US? Yeah, highly unlikely. China conflict with other nations is probably not massively likely either. From here on in we’re more likely to see nations crack under their own social strain with maybe the odd mini invasion here and there, but overall all nations will necessarily dissolve and humanity will shift perspectives to a different social paradigm.

And we’re still waiting for Cold War number 1 to end

Numbers are universal. Opinions are not. Meaning if we talk about the number 5 we don’t tend to disagree about which number 5 we are talking about nor do we disagree about what ‘about’ or what ‘or’ we’re referring to - we don’t even tend inspect the notion that there could be any difference.

I don’t believe there is a for-itself for Husserl, at least not one opposed to an in-itself. — Joshs

Agreed. He states that Intentionality is basically to be conscious direction. Consciousness cannot be directed as consciousness because that makes no sense. Consciousness can be directed at the concept of consciousness and at memories and possible futures.

As for Heidegger ‘dasein’ doesn’t mean anything as far as I can tell. In Being and Time all I found was a couple of points already made by Husserl articulated in a slightly better manner and a whole lot of fluff and needless explanation (as if he was talking to someone with little to no exposure to Husserl’s work).

What ‘belief’? Historically the idea of ‘nation,’ today, is a relatively new idea. National identity was basically framed on the language you spoke rather than the piece of land you lived on. Passports never used to exist either. These are facts not beliefs?

If you ask people in Europe whether they are European or x nationality a growing proportion of them say European first and x second. I don’t surround myself with them because I don’t live in Europe.

My observation is historical. It isn’t concrete though, but I don’t see how it is a ‘belief’ to point out that the current idea of ‘nation’ is both a recent one (developed more or less within the previous century). In terms of how populations cooperate and relate religion has reached across cultures and as organised religions have become less of a given in places like Europe - again parallel to the more solid development of the current idea of ‘nation’. It looks like the population is largely disconnected from political power, and more importantly they are more aware that they are. What follows is either splintering of the idea of ‘nation’ or a more broad and far reaching idea (like religion) that has greater reach now due to English basically being a global language and an overwhelming capacity to communicate with anyone anywhere all the time.

Something has got to give.

It wasn’t out of my control so that is a better way of expressing it. I thought ‘hyperventilating’ was also a term used for voluntarily breathing deeply/quickly as well as non-voluntary (panic attacks etc.,.).

Just like "saving the Earth", "abandoning nationhood" is only doable if EVERYONE does it. — Harry Hindu

Just watch. I’ve abandoned it and many others have too. It is only a recent idea and hasn’t been around for long anyway. You just assume it is normal because it is all you know. The population just hit a certain critical mass that made ‘nationhood’ a more wearable premise. It’s falling quickly out of fashion now and the old language barriers are falling fast too (they were the main dictates of ‘nation’ prior to borders.

Ah, very good! I must read on this. Have you a reference (Jung's collected works are voluminous)? — Michael Zwingli

Sorry. Cannot recall off the top of my head where it came from. Likely from The Archetypes and The Collective Unconscious. I’ll have a quick look …

Found it! Was in Mysterium Coniunctionus:

These methods are of value only for increasing concentration and consolidating consciousness, but have no significance as regards effecting a synthesis of the personality. On the contrary, their purpose is to shield consciousness from the unconscious and to suppress it.

Note: From book ‘Jung on Active Imagination’ (p.169).

The past is determined. That much we know. What has already come to pass cannot be changed. — Benj96

Because?

With the religions you mention they all share something in common. You have one guy who had an extraordinary experience and (against their better judgement) expressed what they experienced as best they could for the benefit of others who would inevitably come after them.

Religion is an extension of ‘shamanism’. Shamanism, across the globe, shares particular defining features where shamans go through certain extreme stresses and relate their body being broken down, consumed and reconstructed. In religious traditions with whirling dervishes and flagellants pieces of such stress are induced. Just looking as Jesus, Mohammed and buddha we can see repetition of known physiological stresses that actively induce altered states of consciousness (ASCs) known to neuroscience. Examples are isolation, sleep deprivation, extreme focused thought, hyperventilation, fasting and trance dancing.

From personal experience I can say hyperventilation is something instinctual when it comes to inducing this state as I immediately started to hyperventilate ‘on purpose’ once I came out of the peak state and I had no idea why only that I was desperate to get back to it. My experience was induced by intense focus and inner battles, sleep deprivation and fasting (because I forgot to eat and sleep). Such physical stresses and strains will hit anyone with a mental sledgehammer.

It is possible I had a mini stroke maybe? Either way I’d recommend it even though it comes with necessary hell and torture. I certainly had what buddhist’s refer to as ‘ego death’. I went on to try and purposefully induce the same experience again and a year later bungled it (which I had to) and went to the most ‘hellish’ place imaginable that gave me perspective. What this taught me was how memories are very selective and I recalled several episodes from my past I had buried away. I also recalled the full pain of first experience I had but it was still outweighed by the benefit.

The closest I’ve come to explaining this is to come to the conclusion that it was DMT naturally produced in my brain (how I’ve no idea). I say this because reports from trails, and from others who’ve taken ayahuasca, are as close to what I can find that expresses what I experienced. The potential and power of this is not really something I can express (nor fully believe anymore), but I did make myself remember beyond doubt at that point exactly how ‘important’ it was.

There is a chance I am just an unusual person who had a moment of normality. If that is the case though the world would not be how it is now so I can only assume I’m relatively normal and insane like everyone else and just happened to glimpse naked sanity briefly. Now I’m just going along with the madness of everyone else because this species is still figuring itself out.

Note: I’m not a member of any temple (and never have been), both my parents are atheists and I generally abhor both states and religious institutions for the most part. My first love was physics.

I’d recommend walking meditation for an hour then sitting meditation for an hour (alternating). Minimum six hours a day and minimum of 3 hr session. If you did this for 3-4 days you’d get used to it and once you returned to your usual routine you’d certainly feel the difference in your state of mind.

Honestly, I don’t really understand how anyone expects to get anything from a few minutes a day if they have no idea what it is they are working towards. So, do the meditation full time (for a week if possible) and if you get something out of it then you’re more likely going to stick to a daily rountine.

Personally I’m with Jung when it comes to my regard for meditation. That is it is a means of building up a wall between the ego and unconscious - this might be good for some but might be bad for others.

This is fairly clear as buddhist meditations are generally about shifting attention away from unconscious items that arise rather than exploring them. Exploring them (which is not something to be taken lightly) is the process of Individuation - which is inevitably painful/scary.

I'm still not sure. I think the two parties need each other and will try to hold the country together under the status quo for as long as possible. — Harry Hindu

The population has/is outgrowing the need for the idea of 'country'. I'm not making prediction about what will/might happen but I cannot see a way past the dissolution of the 'nation state' this century (and see it happening already).

To unite across the globe religious doctrine was used. This spread out from one place to another. Then the religious attitude declined and we're seeing a clinging to nationhood instead (as has been happening for the last century or two). Whatever remains of the nation idea after the public loses interested will basically form the next social epoch I'd say and I think we're living through the transition right now.

Yes. So abolishing political parties would be double-good in weeding out the ones that find it difficult to think for themselves from the voting system, and endowing those that do take the time to research the candidates more options. — Harry Hindu

There have been instances for governmental reform but generally they are sidelined as much as possible by those in power because it doesn't suit them.

In this instance the US when in splits (assuming it is still a powerhouse when it does) may open up a door to change. Either way I think the 'nation' is on its way out and I've little idea what will come next but technology will undoubtedly play a major role.

That isn't what I've said at all. I said that I think maybe monotheism came too soon not that it should've come before. Not that this has anything to do with evolution as you frame it (as what 'reason' there is may simply be chance because evolution isn't about some 'best path' stuff just happens and somethings don't last where others do).

My pondering was that it seems to me like polytheism is more psychologically tangible than monotheism, yet others have pointed out that monotheism does kind of present itself as Jungian Individuation to a degree (which is a fair point).

My general view is that all elements of human thought are more tangible seen as separate rather than merely a whole singular entity. It is understandable to see how altered states of consciousness can bring about a feeling of unity and how expressing this - in mythical terms - could easily be framed as a monotheistic item.

Fair enough :)

I will offer an example of each category that I don't think can be debated by personal perspectives. — SatmBopd

Essentially, I fear Nietzsche's "Last man" if that makes any sense. — SatmBopd

These don't seem to fit together.

You're worried about young people choosing shallow entertainment over more stimulating thought and investigation? I would argue that the danger here is precisely that their lives will become less "variable" without more dangerous, and creative investigation into a wider "variety" of ideas and concerns. — SatmBopd

I'd say so. But I might be completely wrong about the youth today being any different to the youth from the past. The environment they live in is different enough to perhaps make a significant difference - the price for greater freedom.

The divide and rule strategy has been quite successful many times. — ssu

And due to the geographic divide will lead to the inevitable outcome of a more literal split. In other countries the political division is generally scattered in the US you can pretty much see borders in the map.

Democracy and simplicity. People can vote however they wish to and most prefer an A or B option so they don’t have to think too hard.

Note: Even in European countries there are usually only two main parties in the running at any particular time. That said there are certainly others that have waxed and waned over the decades and at least have some minute impact even when far behind the others. The system in the US is puzzling to me tbh.

Overall I think the vast majority of governments have too much to deal with. Decentralising power makes the most sense and for whatever reason (probably the delusion of ‘patriotism’) the chance passed us by several decades ago. Meaning countries should’ve split up so individual votes effected individual lives rather than merely feeding into a monster they had no connection to.

Politics for the people now seems to take form in poor and weak rebellions by the uninformed and cowering intellects.

A split in the US seems to be the best possible outcome in the near future for everyone across the globe. Given that the US is so dominant right now it could still retain dominance over other bodies that are feared too whilst breaking/splitting into more manageable forms.

Either way I’m still convinced that the idea of ‘nation’ is in its death throes right now and that ‘God is dead’ will be of less interest soon enough as I’m sure the more relevant point now is ‘Nation is dead’ … when this is noticed maybe politics for the people and of the people will revive itself.

To live is to evaluate. — 180 Proof

More succinct that my rant :D

First problems above:

I think a big problem here is the English language. When talking about a ‘meaning of life’ we’re just
talking about ‘purpose’ or ‘reason for something’.

‘Building’ meaning makes no sense. Either something has meaning in reference to something else or it doesn’t. The colour blue has meaning if colour is important to an aim. Meaning is inherent in the aim of a task.

The problem framed with the terms ‘purpose’ and ‘meaning’ is when they are applied in a universal manner. That is the mistake.

Second:

Life is not ‘meaningless’ anymore than blue isn’t a colour. We are temporal so necessarily directed in one way or another towards something in way way or another. Understanding how we are directed, what we’re directed towards (relative to other items) and distinguishing items, is all there is to life.

What is the meaning of blue? Without context a useless question.

What is the meaning of life” Without specifics (ie. contained within tangible bounds) equally useless.

To further break this down we find ‘good’ and ‘bad’ (meaning valuation). The purpose/meaning grows from the context of a question/proposal and how we consider it as ‘better’ or ‘worse’ and for what reasons. We have small goals in life not some ultimate goal because we’re not privy to any kind of complete picture. We naturally investigate and map out our experiences and make up ideas and plans to help understand our direction - and possibly alter it (as we’re just time machines).

Always worth engaging with - Creative, variable things
Sometimes worth engaging with - Non creative but harmless variable things
Rarely worth engaging with - Actively destructive variable things
Probably not worth your time - Static things — SatmBopd

And all of these are delineated by personal perspectives. Generally there isn’t anything that is ‘boring’ there is simply a preference by individuals and boring people (those who think almost everything is boring). Calling something ‘boring’ is much easier than admitting to ourselves that we’re just plain lazy, stupid or fearful.

Repetition is certainly one factor in what is boring. Some people adore repetition and others loath it.

In terms of this here political environment I think people tend to prefer to be entertained for 5 mins rather than think for 30 mins. This is a sad state of affairs, if true, and I wonder if the youth will be able to pull themselves out of a potential trap - or if they’ll even recognise it as a trap. Entertainment for the sake of entertainment is okay, but entertainment at the detriment of self-reflection and dispensing with difficult freedoms is another.

No idea what you’re talking about. It doesn’t look relevant to the thread.

Yes.

I would guess the most important thing is memory. — T Clark

Memories are sense based.

Can anything ever be real without sensory feedback? — TiredThinker

No. Even abstractions are … well, abstracted from sensory input not from some mysterious ether.

All in all I think Kant put it well enough. The capacity to think is empty without sensory input. What we deem as ‘real’ or ‘the world’ is due to sensory perception but that sensory perception alone isn’t much in and of itself. An eye is pretty much the same as a camera, but we don’t ‘see’ with our eyes as the main gubbins is in the occipital lobe.

Just the philosophy forum is bad for your health

Why do you favor a polytheistic framework? — frank

Pretty much for the reason you outline above. Realism. A bunch of interacting entities (that are neither good or bad) is more comparable to humans than some ideal.

A degree, any degree, informs your potential employer that you can dedicate yourself to something longterm. If you do a degree then it means you’re generally more likely to commit to their company rather than quit job after a year or two.

If you wish to become a teacher then a degree in teaching is the way to go. Teaching is a viable career but you’re better off teaching abroad if you’re from the west (in middle east or asia).

I would also recommend doing some actual work teaching (volunteering if necessary) to see if you actually enjoy teaching. Plus there is the question of what level you prefer to teach at. Some like to teach kids and others prefer young adults (often it’s one or the other). Teaching kinds generally pays less for some reason.

If you wish to teach at university level then you’re probably best off starting out for smaller (and probably foreign) institutions as there will be more opportunities for you there. Online teaching certainly something you should start right now if you want to teach as you can do it in some capacity right away.

I'm just trying to speak in the terms you were using. I don't value anything more than another. — Philosophim

That cannot be true. I value 'first' more as most people do. I am not saying it is logical just more a condition of culture I think.

The rest is just repetition of physics. Not interested. You can find plenty of discussion abut that on science forums with people who know what they are talking about.

Nothing you are saying looks or sounds like philosophy so I'm out. Have fun :)

Well, my point was YOU are in the 1% on the global scale so are you running the world like you're part of an international crime family?

Turns out I am WRONG about this now as wages have increased dramatically so you'd need to be earning around $700,000 a year to qualify as being in the top 1%.

Even so my point was that the few at the very top are kept there by those below them. I don't for a second think they are all criminals though. I do think they have too much potential power though. The fact that lobbying is allowed in the US make the situation worse in that country.

Well, I am valuing two things. A first cause leads to a second right? — Philosophim

Is that a 'value'? Why is it important what comes 'first' or if something does come 'first'? Do you apply more value to first or second and if so why do you do this?

But, I don't think you've succeeded in showing the premises of cause and effect aren't real. — Philosophim

Real in what way? Why does the value 'real' come into play here? Are claiming that cause and effect are real because you value them or because you value cause and effect or because you don't value them. I'm guessing you apply the term 'real' to them because you value them so when you say 'real' you mean of 'value'. The question is then 'value' how and due to what distinction?

Try to explain to me how you can type words on your keyboard without cause and effect. — Philosophim

I can show you. Here. I had no need whatsoever to type the words you said I wouldn't be able to stop myself from typing! :D

Seriously, that is part of what I'm getting at. You are reliant upon a certain means of communication to express ideas and can only, at best, vaguely adumbrate certain feels and senses about other vague feelings and senses. The problem is we're not exactly accurate and you did note that.

I can type without any real consideration towards what I am doing as a matter of 'cause and effect' so in that respect (as with walking and breathing) I do not take part in such activities due to being consciously attentive to the world as a 'causal stream' of happenings. I merely live and do for the vast majority of my actions and at certain alarms and triggers happen to draw my attention to or from one matter to another. I do not consider my general actions as being the 'cause leading to an effect' as I probably wouldn't get much done.

I'm aware of how physics models the world. Of course in that department there has been great discoveries and successes regarding cause and effect. The matter of 'time' is not something humans seem to have much of an idea about as it is part of us not apart from us ... or maybe we do have an atemporal element? Or maybe we're just caught up in the whole obsession of measuring and comparing x to y to see beyond it.

If we break down the cause and effect into the item you gave (typing) then I can just keep on dividing up any given act. For example I could say that the cause of me typing on a keyboard is my want to communicate, but then I could ask where this 'want' comes from. I could say my thoughts instigate my want, but what instigates my thoughts. Or I could move in another direction and ask what instigated that particular thought to type, or did I even think about typing or merely acted to the cause of reading your post? Where does this go? What direction do I take? Is this meaningful and if so, or not, how?

First cause makes no sense no more than 'cause and effect' makes sense out of specifically defined boundaries. Then we're back to value and distinction.

Cause and effect are brought about due to categorical distinctions. Within distinctions values are emergent.

We can ask if values beget distinctions or distinctions beget values. It is only of ‘value’ to ask not to answer.

To ask about a ‘first cause’ states that there is a first cause as ‘cause’ and ‘first’ are framed via temporal appreciation not via atemporal appreciation.

I cannot value one thing about another without two things. I can value myself above myself in terms of temporal difference (the me previously to the future me) but this is likely a trick as the ‘now’ is the accumulation of past/future me not distinct from it.

None of this likely helps the discussion though because it is meant as means of putting an end to it :)

If we're talking global scale most, of not all, people here are the 1%.

If you narrow it down to a specific country then it is easier to look with distain upon those who have a considerable amount more than you do.

He is literally the founder of phenomenology. The term you use talking about phenomenology (intentionality) is his specific to phenomenology.

Some of the leading ideas of the phenomenological tradition can be traced back to this issue. Following the lead of Edmund Husserl (1900, 1913), who was both the founder of phenomenology and a student of Brentano’s, the point of the phenomenological analysis has been to show that the essential property of intentionality of being directed onto something is not contingent upon whether some real physical target exists independently of the intentional act itself. To achieve this goal, two concepts have been central to Husserl’s internalist interpretation of intentionality: the concept of a noema (plural noemata) and the concept of epoche (i.e., bracketing) or phenomenological reduction. By the word ‘noema,’ Husserl refers to the internal structure of mental acts. The phenomenological reduction is meant to help get at the essence of mental acts by suspending all naive presuppositions about the difference between real and fictitious entities (on these complex phenomenological concepts, see the papers by Føllesdal and others conveniently gathered in Dreyfus (1982). For further discussion, see Bell (1990) and Dummett (1993).

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/intentionality/

Although not the first to coin the term, it is uncontroversial to suggest that the German philosopher, Edmund Husserl (1859-1938), is the “father” of the philosophical movement known as phenomenology.

https://iep.utm.edu/husserl/

If we're talking about phenomenology then it makes sense to talk about, and refer directly to, Husserl. If you say 'intentionality' and talk about 'phenomenology' you are necessarily involving Husserl just as you'd be talking about Wittgenstein at the mention of language games or beetles in matchboxes.

If you’re here just to act like a dick good for you. You asked what should I do and I assumed you meant in order to attain ‘bliss’ so I answered.

‘Enlightened’ is something a buddhist might say not me. I had an experience that completely changed everything for me but I’m not, nor have I ever been, ‘religious’ in the common sense of the word. If you’re a buddhist and what I say upsets you I don’t really care. I’m not trying to upset people just stating what I know and what I’ve experienced.

Worshipping Elvis surely then is theism, as well, and Elvis fans are theists. — baker

Why? Is Elvis supernatural? If people believe that I guess it would be theism in the broader sense of the term. Reincarnation is a supernatural idea not an objective proven fact - same goes for pantheism. Buddhism is categorised more as autotheism I believe but there are some who are buddhist that believe in gods (outside of buddhism), because in eastern traditions people have no real issue with a pick and mix style ‘religion’. It isn’t all that uncommon.

A monk I met in Thailand (who was running the pagoda) had friends (fellow monks) who were both muslim and buddhist, and knew of others who were hindu, buddhist and christian.
Note: These were actual full time monks not merely ‘people in the street’.

There are also people who follow christian beliefs BUT don’t take the literally (as mentioned). They are more or less agnostic rather than theistic, and don’t hold to any of the idea of an afterlife but merely say they don’t dismiss as they don’t know (but I would still call Christianity a theism).

Glad you got it :D

I have no idea why broadly categorising buddhism under ‘theism’ (rightly and justly done by many) is so upsetting. No creator god, fine. No creation, fine. Those are NOT the sole items that make some doctrine theistic or non-theistic.

I'm not sure that means an awful lot to me. I don't really give a toss about what might be possible in reflecting upon my own conscious experience. Reflecting upon time holds almost no interest either. — Tom Storm

If you’re not interested in studying consciousness then a science of consciousness is pretty much a waste of time for you then.

Note: phenomenology isn’t really a kind of ‘idealism’ anymore than cognitive neuroscience is. What is different about it from the positive sciences is it deals with the item of experience irrespective of any dualistic notions.

His concern with psychology in general was the atomisation and reduction of psychology’s subjective nature to quantifiable objectivity. The very principle of psychology is that of subjective feel not some measured representation of a subjective experience. The over application of positive scientific method towards psychology was something he felt as a wrong move. If we’re measuring motion fair enough, the positive sciences make sense. When it comes to understanding the very cognitive function that formed the positive sciences he was not as convinced.

I think I’d agree with what someone else mentioned here. That is that in the US anything regarded as ‘continental’ is viewed with the upmost suspicion. That is why I see many categorising Husserlian phenomenology as ‘idealism’.

I’d say proof is off if he has labelled phenomenology as ‘assuming there is nothing external’. It does no such thing. It just isn’t interested in such things as the item under scrutiny is consciousness and ‘intentionality’ is necessarily ‘consciousness of …’ and the ‘thinghood’ of the … is not of any direct concern for the purposes of exploring the conscious experience. That is why Husserl talks about ‘bracketing out’ not ‘denying the existence of’.

Framing phenomenology as solipsism is missing the point. If you can say you are conscious you can explore consciousness through being conscious to some degree. One approach is to go through empirical science with experimentation in a physical setting by taking clear (or the best) measurements you can and the other is to enter a kind of meditative state by which you can articulate items of conscious experience and determine what is and isn’t fathomable. One will necessarily feed off of the other.

Personally I think it is a useful tool for some and something that others have no real concern or interest in. Just like some people will attach themselves to stoicism or morality more whereas others will be wholly consumed by logic or epistemology or something else.

The problem is you choosing to hold to a very specific and narrow definition of ‘theism’. If the vast majority of people who speak English don’t agree then you will have either repeat what you mean by theism every time you use the term OR just say buddhists don’t believe in a creator god (I’d go with the later).

I don’t much care whether some group of people accept the definition of theism or not. I don’t accept the definition of ‘religion’ as it is commonly used but I do understand roughly how almost everyone else uses it.

You mean buddhists don’t believe in a creator god. Okay, that doesn’t make it NOT theistic in the general meaning of the term theistic. It just doesn’t, sorry.

And as I stated there are groups that hold to the belief in ‘higher beings’ and just because they don’t refer to them as ‘gods’ in the more Judeochristian sense doesn’t make them any less ‘supernatural’ - same goes for Confucianism where it is more or less about ancestor worship (still theistic in that there is ‘other’ or ‘void’ - a beyond).

Not all Christians believe in an actual personification of god either. Many see it is a ‘force’ or ‘power’. That doesn’t make the foundation of Christianity non-theistic though.

Millions of people practically worship buddha (and I mean that literally) I’ve seen it and spoke to people about it who practice this. They don’t know why they are doing it most of the time though and refer to ‘tradition’.