This is more focused on ‘religion and science,’ but I think there is something like a similar disjoint between ‘philosophy and mysticism’

Brain Greene on Joe Rogan (20 mins): https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gpStPNAB7Cw

You have every right to critique the products of my efforts (and I have every right to disregard them if I think they're without value, which I now intend to do with you), but you have no right to tell me I'm not putting enough effort in. — Pfhorrest

Okay, first two points. Of course. Last point is untrue and I think you’ll be hard pressed to find a reasonable number of people who’d find this ‘really offensive’:

I was hoping to find something like a “philosophy fandom”, that might have that same kind of collaborative creative enthusiasm for “fan philosophical” works. But from what I gather even in contemporary video game fandoms that kind of spirit is hard to find these days, so maybe that kind of hope was always in vain.

(...but I’m trying anyway).
— Pfhorrest

Not trying hard enough. Maybe you’re just not ready yet and find it easier to swallow if it’s ‘the world’ that’s against you instead of yourself.

We’re all human though. I do the same often enough and still hoodwink myself for days/weeks/months at a time. Slowly less and less, it is what it is, we are what we are, but we can instill ourselves a break our own destructive patterns if we manage to stop being consumed by hidden fears for a few brief instances (and they’re always brief or insanity ensues).

GL and keep trying to try, to try trying, to try :D

I have every right to point out that me, you and everyone else make excuses and blame the world often enough rather than look to our own faults.

Like I said before, you're not my boss, hovering over my shoulder to make sure I'm not slacking off. You don't have any grounds to tell me I'm not working hard enough. You can be dissatisfied with the result of my work, but it's my work on my own initiative; I am my boss in this matter. You don't know what else is on my plate, and you don't get to judge whether I'm putting in enough effort. — Pfhorrest

But I do, as does everyone else here, when you come online expressing views of internet forums and how you’re not getting what you’re looking for.

This is also a particularly hot-button issue for me because my father was emotionally abusive in exactly this way when I was younger, turning every dissatisfaction with some outcome of my actions into an attack on my character. (Unexpected problem occurred that I didn't think would happen? "That's right you didn't think!"Any other explanation of how something turned out worse than I meant it to? "No excuses!" It's because of that that I now feel guilty whenever anything bad happens, no matter how out of my control reasonable people would say it was, because I've internalized that I should have been smart enough to foresee every possible problem and proactive enough to preemptively prevent it.) — Pfhorrest

I don’t really come here to be empathetic about peoples hopes, dreams, worries and personal baggage. Professionals can do that to some degree on a personal one-to-one basis. I can only offer a broad point from personal experience (which I wouldn’t normally express here or anywhere else online).

I can relate. In my family my brothers and sister have a very hard time dealing with our parents. I don’t though. For some reason they don’t see them as humans who make the same stupid mistakes in life they make. I used to be angry at my parents for a while and shifted blame onto them. At the end of the day life is tough for everyone sometime more so for others than yourself.

Both my parents repeatedly said exactly the same things as what you’ve shown above and a hell of a lot worse. It might, just might, be your problem not theirs - and that isn’t a bad or derogatory thought to address, just an extremely useful way to deal with who and what you are as an individual. We’re all effectively fucked up in one way or another and often better off for it sometimes :)

That you said I wasn't trying hard enough, and directly in response to me referencing my maxim, admitting that maybe I shouldn't reasonably have had any hopes for something, but that I was at least trying for it. — Pfhorrest

I agree with your maxim. What we do is never enough, we never try hard enough and yet we should really keep at it. That is essentially what I said, but with emphasis on pushing ourselves on regardless.

If you were offended by what I said you should be equally offended by your own words. They are, at their heart, the same. The difference was only in the delivery.

Yeah, exercise. Eat fat and workout.

Try this ...

Piggyback off your emotions to make yourself workout and stop posting for a few weeks. Focus on your body and mind will follow.

Especially to Sushi for taking it so well and speaking in my favor even though he was the target. (I still find that “not trying” remark really offensive and don’t want to engage with you anymore, but it didn’t warrant that kind of flaming). — Pfhorrest

I will engaging with you though. If you still think what I said was ‘really offensive’ you have a problem. I’ve looked back through what I said and the only thing that was off-colour was the ‘high-school’ comment because I neglected to explain what I meant by it - which I did explain as soon as I realised.

What did you find so offensive? You’re maxim says practically the same thing.

The emotional attachment you have to your project is the only logical explanation I have (that happens to everyone to some degree - it’s helpful to realise this though in order to make possible improvements by receiving critique).

Nicaragua and death children. Research that. There are instances that show how a new language can develop.

Something that is interesting is how ‘tense’ is used. There is very little evidence to work with though.

Anyone bothered?

Ganz Andere.

Other people may or may not be implying some ‘supernatural’ stuff (which frankly, is a contrary term in my mind so I just default to ‘ganz andere,’ WHOLLY other not HOLY other.

Mysticism doesn’t have to involve woo woo. I understand that many people view Plato as woo woo, but it’s hard to deny there is actual tangible content to mull over - maybe it’s a matter of cultural heritage? The New Age caused a bizarre fetishism in the west for all things ‘eastern’.

Correct me if I’m getting this right. You’re saying feel good feels good and feeling bad feels bad ... my question is whether or not you’re actually trying to say anything else?

I’m assuming I’ve missed something as you’ve had several replies to something that, from my perspective, says literally nothing other than the glaringly obvious. What did I miss?

I don’t know what that means.

I was just trying to point out that words are more pliable when the subject matter has little substance. So suggesting ‘understanding’ is only possible if it can be articulated is a hard sell (for me at least).

The problem is that MadFool was talking about mysticism, not his opinion of it. Maybe people are confusing the two, or are they the same thing - is mysticism a kind of opinion - if so, then an opinion about what? If mysticism is ineffable regardless of one's opinion, then what is the purpose of even talking about your opinion of it? If mysticism isn't necessarily ineffable, but can be also be expressible, then we are talking past each other, and not sharing opinions about the same thing. — Harry Hindu

It’s like love. When people have a strong experience if it it’s incredibly hard to appreciate that others have experienced anything similar and not ended up screaming, jumping and shouting about it.

It’s also prone to induce certain paradigm shifts that leave people floating in a void (aka some form of insanity).

We can sing and dance, spout poetry and chant. Mysticism is something like that imo but, well ... this is the problem. What I’m talking about isn’t likely to be close to what many people mean.

In tangible terms what I was hoping to talk about here was the artifacts of mysticism - ie. texts revered by all manner of people (the Tao Te Ching is certainly something that can act as a common point of focus, as can other revered works - and make no mistake, many of these texts are regarded as important reflections of the common human experience).

Ridicule is often the default mode when people mention ‘mysticism’. Choosing to show interest in such a human experiences/ideas can be useful. That is not to say there are many, many pitfalls. I’ve seen people post some crazy shit and I have a pretty good idea what got then there, but also realise - in many instances - there is little I can do to reach them.

From a scientific perspective there are some threads of research that explore these things tangentially. At the moment there is too much that is pure speculation, but not a very long time ago if you were interested in studying ‘consciousness’ in the neurosciences it was almost like ending your career as it was regarded as taboo.

Most of the time when the mystery of something is lifted people prefer the fantasy that came before. The so-called ‘mundane’ day-to-day living is the most extraordinary thing. If that was attended to more often things might go more smoothly.

What is unbelievable is just that. The best text I’ve read expressing this is the Tao Te Ching - that said aphorisms can be vicious things that can be put to horrible use. Rhetoric certainly plays it’s part in befuddling the most honest attempts to ‘discuss’ what can’t be ‘discussed’ and many a crackpot will unwittingly spoil the broth.

I could literally go on writing for days without stopping and give, at best, a possible glimpse of a gist of what slumbers within. It’s the human condition. It’s practically the same for everyone.

Meanwhile, the people who have successfully suppressed the mystical from their lives will see those discussing the mystical as speaking nonsense, insisting that they're talking about something which cannot be talked about. It's a sort of taboo. It's not that we cannot talk about it, it's that they have been trained not to talk about it and therefore have not developed the means for talking about it. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yep

What? Objections? I don’t understand.

Stab a baby in the leg with a knife and see if it ‘understands’ pain. According to what you said I guess not because it can’t articulate it with words.

Your philosophy looks very much like a form of primitive hedonism.

As for good and bad being nothing more than ‘emotions’ - I think investigating how you delineate between ‘good’ and ‘bad’ may be fruitful for you (as in, are some ‘emotions’ so nuanced that it’s hard to distinguish them as being either ‘good’ or ‘bad’).

I’m interested to hear what you make of it. Not interested in reading it though.

I have a copy of The Tibetan Book of the Dead. It mostly focusing on how the living deal with death - as in, if someone dies how this is managed.

I suspect the book you mention may play of that position?

I’m absolutely certain I’m not your target audience so it’s VERY difficult to offer decent constructive criticism.

What immediately sticks out is your personality. If that is what you want, great. If you wanted your work to sound more distanced then you have some heavy editing to do.

Again, I’ve said this previously to someone else - very recently. Generally speaking people read not to get to know who you are, and what you know/think. They read for their own purposes - be this entertainment, to explore and attach their views to what is written, or to merely absorb information (the later is where personally distanced scholarly work comes to the fore).

It appears, correct me if I’m wrong, that you’re aiming this work at Christians and/or people with a specific scholarly interest in the gospels. That isn’t me sadly, so my comments are flavoured by that fact.

Often enough it is better to get your general ideas down on paper before you then decide on who you are speaking to and what you would like them to get from your words - probably one of the most difficult and confusing things to sort out imo!

GL

I’m not really that interested in your ‘thesis’. I was just pointing out that it looked very much like you equated whatever your or someone else’s idea of ‘information’ was to what Shannon was doing. In the text you posted there was no well-defined line between Shannon’s ‘information’ and yours.

That was all.

I’m don’t draw a specific boundary between what is and isn’t classed as ‘anarchy’ any more than I do between what is and isn’t a democracy.

‘Rights’ and ‘laws’ are also something I’d avoid lumping together. In terms of general social groups there are undoubtedly behaviors that are more or less accepted (that’s going more into the idea of a ‘social contract’). Absence of positive laws? I wouldn’t say that, but clearly without firmly established positive laws we’re talking more about ‘anarchy’ than not.

Opposition to an authority and a hierarchy (mostly, if not exclusively, a specific to ‘governmental hierarchy/authority’) certainly central to what constitutes ‘anarchy’.

The use of my words was cast in a broad ethnological sense, which is admittedly misleading as this half-baked thread was aimed more at ‘hyperbolic’ (or more charitably put, ‘hypothetical’) representations of governmental structure.

Maybe I should have said have clarified more by saying ‘initial state’ as well.

That’s not the same thing at all. Before there was a governmental body there wasn’t a governmental body - hierarchy doesn’t necessarily mean ‘governmental hierarchy’ and I’m argue that small tribal groups don’t constitute a ‘government’.

Nor am I saying it is in anyway ‘ideal’ just a matter of fact about where we’ve come from. Children left unattended are quite anarchical, but eventually they will ‘organise’ themselves to some degree (not denying that for a second).

I was just saying that your inquiry seemed barely connected to the OP, or any other posts made, and pointing you to a thread where you may find more traction.

People say all sorts of things. In the colloquial sense saying ‘the law’ or ‘scientists’ can be dogmatic holds some weight.

Science and law both lay no claim to absolute truth, and both change and develop over time. Just because they stagnate doesn’t mean they are based on dogmatic principles. For example, the way ‘justice’ was dished out centuries ago is nothing like it is today, and science today is utterly different to what to was centuries ago too.

Religion is based on doctrines, from scriptures most of the time. The ‘truth’ of the scriptures is never held to be questionable yet the interpretation, due to the nature of language, is varied. This is mostly, as far as I can see, due to the institutions of religion rather than a true reflection of ‘being religious’. A religious person needn’t be dogmatic, but at the root the institutionalized doctrine of a religious organisation is heavy embedded in dogma - the writ, unquestionable truth.

Of course, this is just a brief overview. I don’t parcel off my views as being black and white. I think some views, be they religious, scientific or legal, are prone to stagnation and that cultural trends push and pull different views and categories of thought in different directions.

If this is too much material for you to read, then just read what you're willing to. When reading and responding to this, do so from the very beginning. I explain why I think good, bad, beauty, horror, tragedy, etc. can only be emotions (feelings/perceptions/value judgments). — TranscendedRealms

My initial thought was, ‘What else could they be?’

Look forward to reading this tomorrow. Sounds intirguing.

This entire nexus of perception, conception, language, theory, self and logic is kind of mysterious to me. — Enrique

Yeah! We are certainly intrigued by similar things. Noticed that a while ago.

Remove his name then because his paper has nothing to do with some ‘knowledge’ and ‘ignorance’ - just makes it look like pseudoscience. The way you’ve displayed it could easily be construed that you’re using ‘information’ in the manner Shannon was - which you’re clearly not (maybe use the name/s of the guys from Buenos Aires instead?)

It is what it is. Why it is what it is is another matter entirely. Circadian rhythm seems the most likely cause, and I expect it has something to do with UV receptors that control out circadian rhythms - cannot remember what they’re called ... google? ... ha! No wonder:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intrinsically_photosensitive_retinal_ganglion_cells

Bloody mouthful! :D

Claude Shannon quantified Information not as useful ideas, but as a mathematical ratio between meaningful order (1) and meaningless disorder (0); between knowledge (1) and ignorance (0). So, that meaningful mind-stuff exists in the limbo-land of statistics, producing effects on reality while having no sensory physical properties. We know it exists ideally, only by detecting its effects in the real world. — Gnomon

I would say that isn’t even close to what Shannon’s work was about. Looks like you’ve had an idea and attached a famous name to it for inexplicable reasons.

If you can show otherwise then the egg is on my face - I’m fine with that.

Just looks like a very vague connection to say the least.

Also, if you’re in a red room time subjectively slows down, and in a blue room it subjectively speeds up.

Yeah, it’s also a factor for various other uses such as quantities, time and positions. “Orange” is a VERY recent addition to the English language - basically it came about by people saying ‘that is the colour of an orange’.

The above points might have just touched on something that many people have issues with. That is the idea of ‘thinking’ that isn’t verbal. Some people find that extremely hard - I guess they lack the ability to purposefully visualize in high resolution.

That doesn’t make sense to me, sorry.

If this is the case, what are the implications for emergence of a worldview? — Enrique

I’d still like some clarification at this question please.

Read my comment directly after that one.

I meant more in lines of trying to appreciate/consider individual perspectives and the general narrative function embedded in communication.

I don’t see how you need a mystical experience to appreciate the Tao Te Ching

What you mention is one major reason I’ve had an interest in Husserl’s work.

All I know for sure is that I'm pedantic about language. — Zophie

GOOD! :)

I see your objection, but not your alternative. — Isaac

Probably a better thought out thread? :D

Anarchism is the natural human state. We are where we are due to our anarchistic nature. A political reset may lead to something better, but I doubt it as the path we’ve found most useful has led us here.

I would strongly argue that there is ALWAYS a better governmental system. The day we stop striving for something better will be the day the human race either branches off in different directions and/or ceases exist.

Human society had come a bloody long way. We’ve shifted out political perspectives radically over the past few centuries, and centuries prior to that too.

I cannit even begin to imagine what the next few decades have in store for us. I do have a suspicion that we’ll see the concept of nation begin to shift as communication technologies have only recently hit a point that has quite a phenomenal reach.

I'd like to stay on track. Is it "neural priming" or just "priming"? Because I'm afraid the neural part may be quite fatal. — Zophie

It’s a term used by many cognitive neuroscientists. Priming in sometimes used interchangeably, but generally speaking ‘priming’ refers more to ‘visual priming’ - essentially the same effect has been mapped in neurons in other instances.

Things like NLP are much more sketchy, but they popularity by mashing up psychological effects and attaching them to sparse neurological evidence as if it’s ‘proven’.

In terms of language it undoubtedly effects how we view the world. For instance, Korean infants are taught Korean with a strong emphasis on prepositions, whereas in most other languages parents focus more strongly on nouns. Studies have shown that children from around 2-4 (roughly, cannot remember off the cuff) can solve cognitive puzzles at different speeds due to this - Korean youngster surpassing others in spacial tasks where the others surpass the Korean youngsters in category tasks (admittedly this difference evaporate by the time the children hit about 5-6 yrs old). That said, when shown a quick flash of picture of a fish tank (this is from Gazzaniga lecture) and asked what they saw a European adult will just say ‘a fish tank’ where Asian adults are more likely to give a more detailed description - not conclusive, but there is clearly a different focus of attention when the task is given (something purely linguistic or partly educational, is there a serious difference?)

Neuroscience can't examine mental contents, which was the focus of this topic. — Zophie

Cognitive neuroscience is the hardest science there is that can reveal, in part, what the mechanisms of cognition are - which absolutely involve all aspects of consciousness including language development, perception and how we map the world. Priming is a term used throughout the cognitive neurosciences are there are plenty of studies focused on it because memory is of huge interest to many people for many reasons. Psychology has been revived by technological advances that have given a much deeper insight into brain functioning.

I’m not inclined to go down the dualist route of body and mind as separate entities. You can if you wish, whether you find it to be a useful theoretic distinction or a literal one. For me it’s not massively important when scientific evidence, soft or hard, is useful in offering a perspective that can be substantiated to some objective degree.

No one would deny that visual priming is a thing, and tests have been done that observe what neural pathways are firing when this happens. Neurons are certainly involved in mental processes, that would be an extremely difficult thing to argue against from my position.

It is a very broad and fascinating field.

It’s not a new idea. Many people have commented about how ‘religion’ is something like an extension of a ‘nationalistic identity’.