Comments

  • Don't you hate it. . .
    Some diluted lavender essential oil sprayed around, some chamomile, kava, or melatonin while listening to some psychill music mix on YouTube and im usually out for the night. But yes... insomnia is like torture, even if it's only one night. When you got a long day ahead of you it is even worse. :-d
  • Inequity
    Just for clarity's sake, do you mean injustice/prejudice or poverty/lack of necessities? Both? Neither?
    Just curious before i answer. Thanks.
  • The nature of the Self, and the boundaries of the individual.

    Thanks for the reply. Happy holidays!

    Yes, definitely. It is very helpful (and perhaps critical) in discussions about the self to keep in mind the two aspects of self: the "conscious witness self" and the "everything (including the kitchen sink) self". Humor aside, the "everything self" would include all physical attributes, mental activity, and any experiences one has had. Which also would, i think, include all of one's past selves. Like Dickens' Scrooge viewing his past self and his interactions with others. The past might be dead, but it is not gone. (Or is it gone, but not dead? Or dead, but still moving? Insert zombie joke here). Wow, now that i think about it, A Christmas Carol is quite a metaphysical work of fiction. Probably why it has endured so long.


    There are two connotations of "self" that are important to distinguish:

    * There's a mental "sense of self"--your conscious "I"/"Me" phenomena

    * There's "self" with a connotation of your entire body--all of the parts that "belong to you," your hair, your foot, etc.

    The ontological boundaries of the former are the brain phenomena that amount to those particular "I"/"me" mental phenomena.

    The ontological boundaries of the latter is the surface of your body, with parts that you lose--and you're always losing parts, including hair, skin cells, etc. generally being no longer considered part of your self unless it's a "significant" part/something we put a lot of importance on, such as your limbs, your organs, etc. So there's some fuzziness there for sure.

    In terms of epistemic boundaries, that's of course fuzzier and it's subjective; it's simply a matter of how the person in question thinks about their mental self or what, if anything, constitutes their body.
    Terrapin Station
  • The nature of the Self, and the boundaries of the individual.
    The light at the end of the tunnel is me. =MJA

    While watching the light at the end of the tunnel... you are aboard the oncoming train that is shining the light at the end of the tunnel...

    :o
  • The nature of the Self, and the boundaries of the individual.


    Thanks for your reply. A mug of Shakespeare (shakes-beer?) helps one swallow the chewiest gristle of theory! :D
  • The nature of the Self, and the boundaries of the individual.

    Thank you very much for your reply. And happy holidays to all. (L)

    What you wrote brings to mind the Zen master's response of "Who is it that is asking this question?" Which (as i take it in my limited understanding) seems to be provoking/encouraging a deeper interior examination from the questioner rather than looking for a specific answer. In fact, any answer that was in the slightest way a cliche or stock response (no matter how elaborate) was apt to provoke a smack on the noggin from the teacher. Which probably got the students attention quickly. But that was a different place and time. The point still stands however, and encourages us to keep looking.

    So if i'm understanding what you wrote, the self is the "unseen seer". "Self" meaning the deepest level of one's being, or perhaps pure consciousness? Or is that a mistaken understanding of your words?

    I agree with your description of "anatta". I merely called it a "concept" in the sense that nearly anything that can possibly be thought of or discussed can be called a concept. That would apply to the self as well, one would imagine.

    As for theorizing and going in the wrong direction... Well, of course! Can't argue with that. Silence is the master of talking, and stillness is the foundation of movement. If one is talking about a particular tree, for example, one can't say everything about it all at once. And even a blue-ribbon panel of scientists, poets, philosophers, and artists could not totally define that one tree. And whatever they produced would be a mere reflection (however brilliant, accurate, or inspiring) and not be the tree itself. Some forums allow the user to have a signature quote in their posts. There doesn't seem to be that option here in this forum, afaik. If i could, I'd put this quote from the Tao te Ching as a sort of disclaimer to what i said: "The Way that can be told is not the eternal Way. The name which can be named is not the eternal name". In other words, take everything with a big grain of salt! Your (s)mileage may vary. :)

    ↪0 thru 9 My general approach to this question is that, whatever the self is, it is never an object of perception, nor amongs the objects of perception.

    If you were to ask, well what are among objects of perception, the easy answer is 'look around you'. Everything you see is an object of perception. But the self is never that, for the obvious yet difficult reason that the self is the subject of experience.

    'Anatta' is not a concept, but an observation along similar lines - all objects, experience, thoughts, sensations, perceptions, and so on, are not self (an-ātman). So theorising about what 'that' is, is already going in the wrong direction, because there is no 'it' or 'that'. Knowing that this is something you can't know is the correct understanding.
    Wayfarer
  • What are you listening to right now?
    With exception to Question and Darthbarracuda, all your music tastes stink.Emptyheady

    Yes, we p-zombies have terrible taste in music! Sometimes we will listen to a broken radiator rattling for hours and wonder why no one has used it in a song. But p-zombies being very obedient and docile, we eagerly await to be enlightened by your list of bitchin' tunes to groove to. 8-)
  • When does dependence become slavery?

    Hello, thanks for your post. Interesting topic, imho. I'm just trying to follow the train of thought, concerning dependency and slavery. Could you define what you mean any further? I think i might know, but it's safer not to assume. There is also the concept of interdependence, as some kind of middle ground between dependence and independence. Though i am hard pressed to come up with an example of anything that is absolutely independent, needing nothing from nor giving anything to anyone else. As for people having to do difficult, dangerous, or dirty jobs; as long as they are compensated very well for it there seems to be less of a problem. Although kids probably will never dream of becoming a sewer cleaner. :D
  • Philosophy is an absolute joke

    :D lol! The philosophical comedy stylings of Mongrel, ladies and gentlemen!
    I'll be here all week. Try the Plato' fries! Whatya a bunch of Stoics out there?!
    X-)
  • Philosophy is an absolute joke
    In any situation there is the "what", the "how", and the "why", along with other factors.

    In the case of the original post, the "why" of the situation unknown. (Why is this question asked and what are the questioner's motives.) The "what" was a fairly standard philosophical question. The "how" in this case might be the key to understanding the situation and determining how to respond, if a response is warranted. It is difficult to miss the tone of the OP with words like "nonsense", "absolute failure", and "absolute joke". Little subtlety there. If i were to yell at someone "hey you! tell me now what time is it?!?", they would be right to glare at me and walk away. If someone wished to ignore the tone, and proceed with their response, that is their choice. But to ask others to close their eyes to the dominant factor in the situation risks acting in bad faith, as Sartre would describe it. What on the surface appears to be merely a question of metaphysics, becomes a question of ethics when all given factors are considered.
  • What is self-esteem?

    Not sure, that may indeed be the case. Lol! :D Was referring to something like a tire, how the pressure is measured in PSI. And how a more inflated tire will have a higher pounds per square inch than an underinflated tire, which seems like there's more pressure. Anyhow, you get the general point...
  • What is self-esteem?
    To consider self-esteem, one could first consider the very concept of "self".

    Which brings to mind this quote from Dogen: “To study enlightenment is to study the self; to study the self is to forget the self; to forget the self is to be actualized by myriad things. When actualized by myriad things, your body and mind as well as the body and mind of others drop away. No trace of realization remains and this no trace continues endlessly.”

    This may seem all well and good for Zen masters or practicing Buddhists or maybe magickal wizards, but what practical use is that in real life? (one could ask). To continue the thoughts i wrote in the first response in this thread, any steps to re-balance the ego (that which is one's sense of self) will more than likely yield positive results. It is not an all-or-nothing affair where one is trying to lose, or worse yet "kill", the ego. Some gentle and gradual reducing may help, though. The ego can become inadvertently enlarged, much like our bodies or the pile of our possessions can. There seems to be something in the human mind that likes to grab and hold onto things to fill the void. This can be natural and healthy, like eating when hungry. But it quickly can go to extremes, that much seems self-evident. At least it relates to my experiences both past and present in attempting to find the balance points. When applied to the body, it can lead to a toxic obesity and ill health. With possessions, it may manifest as extreme hoarding.

    "A ping pong ball on the ocean"...

    But when it is the self itself trying to hyper-expand to fill the void and deal with a sense of emptiness, it is harder to deal with because it is not visible. Not visible, but existent nonetheless. A feeling of disconnection and isolation from other humans and the rest of the world is perhaps one of the most common feelings. (There have been several recent threads concerning this isolation and feeling of solipsism such as: http://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/776/the-isolation-of-mind/p1 ). When one feels as separate, small and powerless as a ping pong ball floating on the ocean, it seems like we are battered about at the mercy of the wind and waves. The first inclination might be to do something like the expression "go big or go home". But if one completely identifies with the Isolation, and believes that they are totally separate from everything else, "going big" might just make the situation worse. Instead of being a "ping pong ball self" floating on the ocean, there is a "beach ball self" floating on the waves.

    Well, the "beach ball self" is definitely bigger. Sometimes in certain circumstances bigger is better, but sometimes not. The reflexive habit to expand our identity while keeping the walls of that identity air-tight can lead to a ballooning effect. The more air pumped into a balloon, the larger it becomes. But the air pressure is also increased which may lead to a sense of tightening constriction. The larger an inflated balloon becomes, the thinner its skin is. This makes it more vulnerable to pinpricks and the like. A beach ball on the ocean may have lots of room to bob about. But imagine a room filled with many beach balls, all inflated to the max. They are "feeling" (so to speak) internally pressured from the air, and externally pressured from all the other beach balls pushing against their thin vulnerable surfaces. One can then imagine the sorts of dynamics and conflicts arising from this hypothetical situation. This describes in a very general way many of the interactions around us, imho.

    Those who say that this situation is the way things are and is unavoidable, and it boils down to "survival of the fittest" are probably concerned with becoming the largest beach ball on the block, while trying to deflate their competition.

    And there are those who know this dynamic exists, but are looking for other ways of existing. Those that look long enough might find something.

    Thanks for your consideration of these ideas. Hope they are as helpful to read as they were for me to write. Any feedback is welcome.
  • How things came to be this way. Share your story of the universe.
    Lol! Funny responses are better than none at all. :D It is a little unusual thread topic, for sure. I was just reading many of the other threads and thought it would be interesting to hear people's ideas of the big picture, what the general situation is now and how we got here. And maybe where we are going, if anywhere. Still trying to get my ideas on that topic straight.
  • What is self-esteem?
    This response may perhaps seem somewhat counterintuitive, so I'll try to word it well. What you describe is probably a concern for the greater majority of people. Some hide it well, and may be hesitant to admit to anything less than perfection.

    Anyway, the goal is usually described as attaining a healthy sense of self. Which is well and good.
    But what is not usually factored into the equation is that in our culture the "sense of self" has been growing exponentially from a very early age. We are constantly encouraged to "be somebody" and stand out from our peers. The marketing of countless products starts even before the baby has been born. All of this is not a totally negative thing. There are some upsides. But it seems mostly the effect is a bloated and unwieldy sense of self. It feels like a lot of heavy baggage that one cannot put down. This is very different from arrogance, pride, or the usual characteristics of egotism. Using my own experiences as a guide, the feelings could range from confusion, withdrawal and depression to a manic instability and rage.

    I now compare a balanced sense of self to maintaining an ideal weight (whatever that may be). Not to sound harshly judgmental, but when it comes to the "self", many people are carrying around a lot of excess weight and baggage. I include myself in that estimation. And it includes a lot of people who are kind, intelligent, hard-working, creative, etc. Another comparison would be the overflow of possessions and stuff crammed into our closets, basements, and storage lockers. We feel empty so we overeat and overspend. That is fairly obvious. The hidden addiction is to be constantly adding layers to our self, adding new and exciting personae, to make one feel more interesting. And the market smells an angle. The "Brand called Me" has been around a long time now.

    So to continue the weight metaphor... when one tries to become healthier, no one says they want to lose ALL their weight. That is either impossible, an exaggeration, or anorexic. Likewise, the goal is not to lose ALL sense of self. That is probably impossible, and if it is possible it would be very unbalanced at least. The motto which sums this up and seems to help me is "lose yourself, lose your problems". This may be a bit succinct and pithy, but the gist is the less surface area the self has, the less area there is for concerns, worries, and problems to attach to. Then we can focus on the situations in life that need our attention and energy. There are lots of them. So to cut out the self-created (though inadvertent) ones can truly be a weight off our backs.
  • What do you make of Ryan Holiday?
    Interesting. Didn't know about Stoicon or Ryan Holiday. Just read some of his stuff on Amazon. His audience/market seems to be 16-25 year old people seeking guidance and inspiration. Which is fine. The younger generation is under incredible pressure. If some are seeking a way out of becoming the "selfie and reality tv generation", then that is good. The movement for social justice seems to be a movement beyond mere self-interest. But that is perhaps a whole other topic, and the results of that movement are far from settled.

    The Ego is the Enemy has bite-sized stories and quotes. So if it seems a bit light weight compared to even Philosophy for Dummies, it may serve some positive functions. Firstly, (along with his Stoicism book) it may help the young reader with life choices, and provide an understandable intro to philosophy, ethics, logical thinking and speaking. And perhaps much more optimistically, it could help to bring back into our culture some sort of philosophical discourse, for lack of a better term. Anything which could replace the current slash-and-burn, take no prisoners style of public debate (cue "Us and Them" by Pink Floyd) would be a welcome relief. But perhaps that is just daydreaming.
  • Philosophical themes of The Lord of the Rings- our world reflected by Middle-Earth

    Thanks for the excellent insights. Most appreciated. The hobbits indeed could be somewhat petty now and then (the Sackville Bagginses!). And the Ring had a certain power over Bilbo, though he escaped Gollum's fate. I think Smeagol started as a hobbit-like creature as well. Gandalf seems like a cross between a human and an elf. He is the voice of reason mostly, though a little cranky sometimes. The contrast between him and Saruman is striking. Is it quite a portrait of intelligence and power gone bad. Saruman shows that intelligence without any compassion degrades into mere cunning. I love the scenes in the films with Saruman and Gandalf. What a great voice Christopher Lee had. He played a similar character (King Haggard) in the animated The Last Unicorn. The bad guy gets what is coming to him, in fiction and movies at least! :D
  • Philosophical themes of The Lord of the Rings- our world reflected by Middle-Earth
    who do you think is the "true" hero of LotR?Real Gone Cat

    Have to say Boromir, based on the sheer number of internet memes starting with "One does not simply..."
    X-)
  • Philosophical themes of The Lord of the Rings- our world reflected by Middle-Earth
    Many things to consider about the Ring, its meanings to those who cross its path and to those whom it affects. And the the ethics that invariably come into play for those in the path or power of the Ring.

    So being called The Lord of the Rings, the "one ring" is at the center of everything that happens. It is in fact one of the main "characters" of the story, since by its very nature it is more than mere possession. In being forged by Sauron, it contains much of his life force. In considering the One Ring, it is helpful to compare it to the other rings of power.

    (From Wikipedia)
    [Tolkien's essay "Of the Rings of Power and the Third Age" in The Silmarillion gives the background of the making of the rings.[1] At the end of the First Age, Sauron evaded the call of the Valar to surrender, and fled to Middle-earth. Midway through the Second Age he came in disguise as Annatar ("Lord of Gifts") to the Elven smiths of Eregion, who were led by Celebrimbor, and taught them the craft of forging magic rings. Tolkien writes that the Elves made many lesser rings as essays in the craft,[2] but eventually with Sauron's assistance they forged the Seven and the Nine. The Three were made by Celebrimbor himself without Sauron's assistance; they remained unsullied by his touch.

    The Three were called Narya, the Ring of Fire (set with a ruby); Nenya, the Ring of Water or Ring of Adamant (made of mithril and set with a "white stone"), and Vilya, the Ring of Air, the "mightiest of the Three" (made of gold and set with a sapphire).[9]

    Before the sack of Eregion, Celebrimbor gave Vilya and Narya to Gil-galad and Nenya to Galadriel. Gil-galad later gave Narya to Círdan, and gave Vilya to Elrond.

    The Three remained hidden from Sauron and untouched by him. During the Third Age, after he lost the One, they were used for the preservation and enhancement of three remaining realms of the Eldar. Vilya was used by Elrond in Rivendell, Nenya by Galadriel in Lothlórien, and Narya by Círdan in Lindon. When the Istari, or wizards, arrived about T.A. 1100, Círdan gave Narya to Gandalf, who bore it until the end of the Third Age.

    During the period of The Lord of the Rings, the Three were borne by Elrond, Galadriel, and Gandalf; but until the end of the book their rings are not seen. Only Frodo, the bearer of the One, sees Galadriel's ring, and only when she draws his attention to it. At the end of the book, these three take their rings, now visible and powerless, over the sea to the Undying Lands.]



    It seems the three Elven Rings, since they were the only ones untouched by Sauron, were the only ones that didn't corrupt their wearers. And perhaps it was also their strength, intelligence, and goodness that protected Elrond, Galadriel, and Gandalf. The humans do not fare well at all. The nine rings of power given to men bring their owners to ruin, becoming the ghastly Ring Wraiths. The One Ring leads to the demise of many, including Boromir and Isildur, Aragorn's ancestor. Aragorn seems to know that it beyond possessing, the Ring would become the possessor. It seems to represent the saying "absolute power corrupts absolutely". No wishing or bargaining would change that.

    The character of Tom Bombadil alone seems totally immune to its power. He didn't want it, nor turned invisible when wearing it. The reason Elrond didn't give the ring to Tom to take to Mordor, seems to be that he felt Tom might lose interest and toss it away. So as far as humans go, the Buddha-like Tom Bombadil and the long suffering Aragorn might be an expression of Tolkien's hope for the race.

    The hobbits and Elves could be role models for ethical behavior, as well. The two races seem to represent something the humans have left behind, and perhaps something they cannot do without. The hobbits could symbolize the innocence of childhood, or the sustainable simplicity of tribal people. The Elves might represent an ancient wisdom and power driven away by the quest for power. In any event, Tolkien places these "non-human" beings in a place of extreme importance for the continued existence of humanity.
  • Philosophical themes of The Lord of the Rings- our world reflected by Middle-Earth

    Lol! You caught me! I generally like to throw in words like "seems, perhaps, maybe, possibly" especially on this forum lest someone challenge me to "prove it!" :D

    But yes, that quote from Tolkien shows that his vision about LOTR evolved from decidedly not allegorical to what he called "fundamentally religious and Catholic". But, to me, it still has a broadness and universality of interpretation. More so than for example, C.S. Lewis's Christ-figure Aslan. At least Tolkien didn't telegraph meanings so broadly that he gave a character the initials J.C. or something.
    Though in the film, Aragorn has got a warrior-Jesus vibe going on. The second coming of the king? Perhaps more Christian than i had thought...
  • The alliance between the Left and Islam

    Thanks very much for your reply. Of course, my post was on the speculative worst-case scenario side. I just wonder if some organizations (whether local or foreign, public or private) have a vested interest in stirring people against each other. Noam Chomsky said "We are hurtling towards self-destruction at an alarming rate thanks chiefly to an advertising and propaganda system that goads people from infancy towards apathy, isolation, passivity, helplessness and separation."

    BTW, happy holidays everyone! ;)
  • The alliance between the Left and Islam

    Thanks for your informative post. I live in the mid-USA, and it is difficult for me to imagine living in an area flooded with more and more refugees each day. The countries in Europe had their hands full already, before the influx of foreign people seeking refuge. Hats off to Germany if they can find a solution to this crisis. It would serve as an example for other nations. As an aside, i feel that Time magazine's "Person of the Year" should have been "the Refugee", imho.
  • The alliance between the Left and Islam
    Of course, one must know by now that we are being played for suckers. You and I, "left and right", "conservative and liberal". This is hardly news to anyone certainly.

    A pyramid has a left and a right on the bottom. The top is just the top. And those on top want to stay there, which is difficult because there is not much room and the fighting is no-holds-barred.

    Divide and conquer is probably oldest strategy around. And it is working on us so well that you will see another civil war in the Ununited States, before you see a parade celebrating both sides. And that potential civil war would be just fine with the status quo. They are ready for it, whichever "party" (now there's Orwellian doublespeak. No fun at this party) is in office. There may be two parties, but they are two sides of the same coin. And they don't wish to share that coin with us. Or anything thing else. Those who study philosophy and the human mind should be able to see past this game. But passions and fog are blinding.

    So we can waste our time, energy, efforts, and money on wearing our official red or blue team merchandise and yelling at our neighbors. Or we can take the difficult steps needed in order to see clearly. There is nothing wrong with our eyes or our minds. But there is a thick fog covering everything that makes it hard to see. Guess who is running the fog machine? Action is needed, but without our vision we are like the Three Stooges smacking each other on the head, much to the amusement of the Pharaohs (and their billionaire backers).

    Still don't believe this? Just picture yourself on top of that pyramid. You are the ruler with immense power and money. You want to stay on top for as long as possible. The fighting at the pinnacle is fierce. The mob and natives are restless, and they want answers now. Before they storm the Bastille, they must be weakened. Divided and conquered. Is that not what you would do to hold on to power?

    In my heart, there is a hope that this post is all cynicism, bs, and recycled conspiracy theory. There is also a fear that it isn't.
  • The Brothers Karamazov Discussion
    Yes, Brothers Karamozov. Some books etch their words and characters onto your brain. So that even when you're not reading it, you're living and breathing and remembering it. The 1958 film version is excellent. Even at about 2 and a half hours, it still has to cut out large sections of the novel. Lee J. Cobb, Yul Brynner, Richard Basehart, Claire Bloom, and a young and earnest William Shatner all give performances wothy of the material, imho. The 2008 12 part tv mini-series Bratya Karamazovy looks most interesting, and i think all the episodes are on YouTube.
  • Mental Illness, Mental Strength and Philosophical Discourse
    Thank you very much to everyone who has shared, listened, and responded in this thread. It seems to be a helpful thing. If doctors have approximately 5.2 minutes to listen to us and try to help... well, we can at least listen to each other. Which is a start, a very good start. We travelers from afar gather at this particular tavern seeking nourishment, rest, and company. If we are politely asked to leave our swords of theory at the door, we may still carry our switchblade of thought with which to carve ideas to share at the table.

    Just my two cents worth. Your (s)mileage :) may vary. (L)
  • The isolation of mind
    Reveal
    So much of metaphysics is focused on the quite unusual isolation of mind. In my own words, I would say that the mind appears to be "a world inside of a world"; in a crude analogy, the world is a "container" and inside of the container are even more containers. Little "black boxes" so to speak, which cannot be accessed from the outside and which subjectivity arises.

    This view is basically Cartesian substance dualism. There's the unconscious world of extension and the conscious world of ideas. Somehow these substances interact, perhaps by way of divine intervention. But why? Why would the world be structured as such? Why only two substances? Why not an infinity of substances, a la Spinoza and Leibniz (monads)?

    Is it even the case that there actually is an ontological separation going on here? I for one cannot understand how some people, like materialists/physicalists, can believe that mind is literally reduced to non-mind. For some funny reason they want to tell us that the things we are more sensitive and knowledgeable about (our own experiences) are actually reducible/identical to a "something" else that we have very little knowledge of. If we have to choose sides, monism would seem to favor idealism.

    Idealism may be coherent, but that doesn't make it right per se. Whereas physicalism suffers from the problem of literally explaining away our own minds, idealism and also substance dualism suffers from an apparent difficulty mentioned above: it's hard to see why the universe would be structured like this. Given what we know about evolution in both the biological and cosmological arenas, it comes across as ad hoc to simply slap a static structure onto reality.

    So we have what I see to be the definitive and essential property of mind: subjective isolation, and we also have a tension between the rather strange nature of mind and the surrounding context which it (apparently) emerged. Where does mind come from? Is it really plausible to say that mind has "always been" or is "poofed" into existence by an act of the divine? But if substance monism/dualism is unpersuasive, how else do we account for the subjective isolation of the mind? What else could account for the impossibility of "going into" someone else's mind, except by an actual metaphysical barrier of sorts, the same barrier that makes such theories seem ad hoc?

    Because the fact is that we cannot access other people's minds in the way we do our own. They are our property. The universe has made various sorts of containers: fog obscures a landscape, a clam shell protects the organism, a door shuts off a room from the rest of the world. Yet at least conceptually we can open these containers and see their contents. We cannot do this with mind.
    darthbarracuda



    Evidently we can, for example, when we talk about the mind, and share insights into the minds of different speakers. Therefore, the mind is not isolated.
    — jkop

    This is merely communication and inference. There's a reason behaviorism was so popular back in the day: mind is literally cut off from observation and thus it was seen as unfit for scientific inquiry.
    darthbarracuda

    Of course, jkop's post probably didn't completely answer your initial question. But tossing it out might be a little hasty, imho. It could help us to understand any possible less "physical" types of communication by starting with basic communication. (And i use the word "communication" in its usual general meaning: to give or receive information. Whether such exchanges of information are intentionally directed to a particular person is another matter. For example of indirect, non-particular communication: someone tuning a radio receiver to hear a communication in the form of music or talking.)

    Would not a theoretical direct mind-to-mind transmission still be a type of communication?
    Yes, that is quite a stretch to posit the existence of direct transmission or telepathy. But i am not the first to posit the possibility of such. Please note that i am merely imagining its theoretical existence, and not claiming it as a fact.

    Let us imagine a linear scale of human communication. Say it is a scale of 0-100. At the zero point rating, there would be no communication of any kind. At the 100 point rating, there would be complete mind-reading ability. Ordinary verbal communication would be at about 50 points. In this example, two people engaged in conversation could possibly be at different ratings on the scale. And there are subtler levels of nonverbal communication, of course. Like when you walk into the room with your spouse/SO, and without a word you know exactly how they are feeling, what caused it, and how the rest of the night is going to turn out (while sleeping on the couch). This would be at around 75 points. Much further above that would be getting into psychic territory, about which some might remain unconvinced.


    "So we have what I see to be the definitive and essential property of mind: subjective isolation, and we also have a tension between the rather strange nature of mind and the surrounding context which it (apparently) emerged. Where does mind come from? Is it really plausible to say that mind has "always been" or is "poofed" into existence by an act of the divine? But if substance monism/dualism is unpersuasive, how else do we account for the subjective isolation of the mind? What else could account for the impossibility of "going into" someone else's mind, except by an actual metaphysical barrier of sorts, the same barrier that makes such theories seem ad hoc?"


    I don't know. Subjective isolation as "the definitive and essential property of mind"? That is really swinging for the fences, which i can appreciate. But that seems like it is prioritizing "subjective isolation" over every other single characteristic of the mind. And that seems subjective, rather than objective. Maybe it happens to be a prominent characteristic of your current state of mind. Or maybe not. But in any case, at least that statement seems to be a reach.

    Your effort is most appreciated though, and is very interesting. Otherwise, I'd have no response. For what it is worth, the main philosophical/spiritual question that interests me is how one can transcend their own consciousness and make genuine connections with the world and with others, even if temporarily. The idea of identity seems integral to this. When i identify with everything around as much as possible: the gravel, the people, bugs, the clouds, the litter, the birds; freedom from the prison of the self is experienced. Tat tvam asi, you are that (as the saying goes). So... to identity with everything (and not just sports teams) is the goal. While still paying the bills, brushing my teeth, and obeying the speed limit. Imho, the highest belief in our culture (that on which everything else rests) isn't democracy, or beauty, or truth, or pleasure, or religion, or family, or possessions, or love, or even money, fame and power. It is the Self, endlessly fascinated with itself (what else?). Yet the walls of its palace become a prison. An over-ripe individualism becomes an isolation from which we struggle to escape.
  • how am i not god?
    Creator (ex trollio)? :D :D :D
  • Tao Te Ching appreciation thread

    Thanks for the thoughtful responses and commentary. Most appreciated! Feel free to post further lines from either the Tao te Ching or The Art of War, and a response or insight. (this goes for anyone wishing to contribute, of course). And will check out "The Three Kingdoms" when possible. Thanks for the introduction to it!

    In the movie "Do the Right Thing", there is a scene where a crowd has gathered after a near accident involving a child and a car. The police arrive and ask if anyone saw what happened. The character played by the wonderful Ossie Davis intones in a deep voice, "Those that know, don't talk. And those that talk, don't know." To which the officer replies, "What is that, voodoo?" Very interesting little scene indeed. The tragic and comic balanced artfully. The line referred to being from verse 56 of the Tao:

    Those who know don't talk.
    Those who talk don't know. Close your mouth,
    block off your senses,
    blunt your sharpness,
    untie your knots,
    soften your glare,
    settle your dust.
    This is the primal identity. Be like the Tao.
    It can't be approached or withdrawn from,
    benefited or harmed,
    honored or brought into disgrace.
    It gives itself up continually.
    That is why it endures.
  • Tao Te Ching appreciation thread
    There is an overlap and it common ground between the Tao te Ching of Lao-Tzu and The Art of War by Sun-Tzu. Some quotes from the Tao expressed in a military-type metaphor are "the wise general treats victory like a funeral. Because of the loss of life, it is no cause for celebration." and "lean years follow in the wake of a great war. Thorn bushes spring up wherever an army has passed."

    The Art of War is not as familiar to me, but is filled with insights that could be applied to the give and take of daily life:

    “He who advances without seeking fame,
    Who retreats without escaping blame,
    He whose one aim is to protect his people and serve his lord,
    The man is a jewel of the Realm”
    ― Sun Tzu, The Art of War

    “If those who are sent to draw water begin by drinking themselves, the army is suffering from thirst. [One may know the condition of a whole army from the behavior of a single man.]”
    ― Sun Tzu, The Art of War

    “There are five dangerous faults which may affect a general:
    (1) Recklessness, which leads to destruction;
    (2) cowardice, which leads to capture;
    (3) a hasty temper, which can be provoked by insults;
    (4) a delicacy of honor which is sensitive to shame;
    (5) over-solicitude for his men, which exposes him to worry and trouble.”
    ― Sun Tzu, The Art of War

    “In the midst of chaos, there is also opportunity”
    ― Sun Tzu, A Arte da Guerra
  • Life is insane/absurd/bizzare/incomprehensible

    Thank you for sharing your experiences. Probably most of us have been there once or twice. Hopefully it is a short ordeal. You seem to be most observant of it, and poised to learn from it. Through ups and downs, I have found we have "compasses" within us. At least three that i can feel, in the head, heart, and gut. These have helped me know which way to go when flying blind through the fog, so to speak. Things are calmer now, but the guidance is always appreciated. May you be blessed with joy and peace.
  • Small Talk vs Deep Talk


    Great stuff! Very insightful descriptions of the many nuances of interpersonal communication. Several times while reading it i was nodding in agreement, having experienced similar situations. Thanks for taking the time to explore it, and hope that you can add even more. :)

    (The only thing that slightly befuddled me was format of the two sections taking the complete opposite viewpoint. Which is fine, better to give both sides of the story than one. But it took me a while to figure it out, despite the line separating the two sections. It might need an introduction, stating exactly what you are doing. And a conclusion might help to wrap it up. Because it is not entirely clear which side you agree with, or neither. Or both, depending on the circumstances. Any of which is fine. But making it extra clear might prevent misunderstanding, imho. Most interesting thoughts however!)

    Thanks again! :) (Y) (L)
  • Suicide and hedonism
    How to get rid of yourself, and yet remain alive. That is the problem. Difficult perhaps, but possible.
  • The Paradox of Purpose
    Yes, thanks for sharing as well. So I ask you, what is it about existence for?schopenhauer1

    Thanks for the reply. Could you please possibly expand on your question to me? I was drawing a blank when considering your question. And also how it could relate to your OP, and the quotes i gave. I definitely think you are onto something, and it is a subject that is interesting as well as important, imho. So maybe rewording the question might help me, if you could. Thanks! :)
  • The Paradox of Purpose
    Hello. Thanks for your post. For whatever it is worth to anyone, what popped into mind first after reading your message was some of the writing of Daniel Quinn, with whom you may be familiar. Some quotes, hopefully relevant:


    “Do you see the slightest evidence anywhere in the universe that creation came to an end with the birth of man? Do you see the slightest evidence anywhere out there that man was the climax toward which creation had been straining from the beginning? ...Very far from it. The universe went on as before, the planet went on as before. Man's appearance caused no more stir than the appearance of jellyfish.”
    ― Daniel Quinn, Ishmael: An Adventure of the Mind and Spirit

    “There's nothing fundamentally wrong with people. Given a story to enact that puts them in accord with the world, they will live in accord with the world. But given a story to enact that puts them at odds with the world, as yours does, they will live at odds with the world. Given a story to enact in which they are the lords of the world, they will ACT like lords of the world. And, given a story to enact in which the world is a foe to be conquered, they will conquer it like a foe, and one day, inevitably, their foe will lie bleeding to death at their feet, as the world is now.”
    ― Daniel Quinn, Ishmael: An Adventure of the Mind and Spirit

    “The world is a very, very fine place. It wasn't a mess. It didn't need to be conquered and ruled by man. In other words, the world doesn't belong to man - but it does need man to belong to it. Some creature had to be the first to go through this...Some creature had to find the way, and if that happened, then...there was no limit to what could happen here. In other words, man does have a place in the world, but it's not his place to rule...Man's place is to be the first. Man's place is to be the first without being the last. Man's place is to figure out how it's possible to do that - and then to make room for all the rest who are capable of becoming what he's become. And maybe, when the time comes, it's man's place to be the teacher of all the rest who are capable of becoming what he's become. Not the only teacher, not the ultimate teacher. Maybe only the first teacher, the kindergarten teacher - but even that wouldn't be too shabby.”
    ― Daniel Quinn, Ishmael: An Adventure of the Mind and Spirit


    The works of Daniel Quinn are filled with provocative nuggets like these, which I generally find interesting and helpful. Others may differ, of course. The overall timeline of Ishmael and its sequel The Story of B is over 10,000 years. He addresses the rise of the major world religions and philosophical movements as a reaction to what many felt as a critical situation. Arguably, it has gotten even more critical since then, with a greater population and higher stakes.

    Thanks for considering these ideas. Hope they shed a little light on this large question.
  • Theory of the Boxed Reality: A Philosophical Proposition
    Reveal
    Theory of the Boxed Reality: A Philosophical Proposition Chapter 1: Introduction
    Before we begin, I would like to thank you for taking the time to read this. Many hours have been dedicated to the planning, designing and writing of this theory. Theory of the Boxed Reality proposes a new way of looking at the world around us. It seeks to answer supposedly unanswerable questions, as well as questions science has posed to man for time immemorial.
    I’m not a psychoanalyst nor a scientist. I don’t claim to be anything I’m not. I’m not a tin-foil hat wearing “flat Earther”. I’m not a dreamer. I’m a realist; this is the basis of the theory.
    I’m not putting this idea forward for it to be ridiculed or savaged by what we consider to be the pillars of the universe: mathematics and science. To understand, to have an open mind about this theory; you must be able to detach yourself from what you were taught as fact. Einstein’s theories of relativity; Newton’s laws; Lemaȋtre’s theory of the Big Bang and the expansion of the universe. You must, for the sake of the pursuit of knowledge, question what the majority accepts as fact. My theory of a “Boxed Reality” presents not a solution, but a new, modified way of thinking about yourself, others, reality and your place in it. I was born into religion; and I’m not ashamed to say I saw through the
    façade they berated us with in Church. However, during my stay at a Catholic school, I began exploring alternatives to what we had been taught during services of worship; an omnipotent, all-knowing, all-forgiving God that created the Universe in 6 days - it didn’t sit well with me. I explored
    branches of philosophy: metaphysics; externalism; determinism; epistemology, then I stumbled upon solipsism. The idea of not being sure whether anything or anyone exists outside of your own mind is a hard one to wrap your head around. An early version of solipsism (solus, “alone”. ipse, “self”) was developed by Gorgias, an Ancient Greek philosopher. George Berkeley and Rene Descartes both made significant contributions to the philosophy from the 1600’s through to the 1700’s before it modernized into what we know it as today.

    My theory (hereafter referred to as “TBR”) does not specifically call on
    solipsism, but its mention here is important. Rather than solipsism; the
    psychopath’s dream, TBR calls heavily on Idealism; the Subjective branch
    in particular. Subjective Idealism is a very important branch of Idealism in regards to its stance on the mind and the world that it perceives. Subjective Idealism w
    as an idea of George Berkeley’s, an Irish philosopher that did most of his work in the 1700’s. On Subjective Idealism’s most basic level, it states that only minds and mental contents exist. Berkeley then went on to deny the existence of the non-mental, an idea termed immaterialism. Idealism, though actually a broad group of closely related ideas, states that reality is a mental construct, or otherwise immaterial. Absolute Idealism draws on this idea, asserting that there is a single, all-mind encompassing reality. TBR builds on this idea, seeking to create a new way of looking at what we know as reality. If we were to hypothetically accept Berkeley’s theory that only minds exist,
    we would have to question whether his theory supported the presence of a “soul”
    . TBR states that the soul is a not a physical being, but an eternal mental companion. The existence of such a concept is absolutely fundamental to TBR. So instead of using Subjective Idealism in its most widely accepted modern form, we will draw lightly on its ideas and rules, using it as a foundation upon which to build TBR. The soul is what I term a “Cross -Life Identifier”. The term sounds fairly modern and technological but the soul is neither of these things. It is a non-physical, non-aging construct serving a main purpose of mental identification. To understand the concept of mental identification, we must delve deeper than simply a definition. TBR subscribes to the theory of reincarnation.
    When one’s mind ceases to work, it ceases existing on a mental plane. Thus, you are dead. What next? Almost instantaneously, you are born. Possibly in this reality, perhaps in another. But that doesn’t matter – you have reincarnated, however with no actively accessible memory of your past lives. If we were to hypothetically take reincarnation as fact, it would explain the seemingly unanswerable question that has plagued the mind for millennia. What happens after death?

    A good example of what I’m about to describe is this: have you ever had a strange dream? A dream
    that didn’t make sense? Or even a dream you would assume was based on real life? Perhaps you saw a notable building, or you were at a beach. TBR states that some of these dreams are memories of a past life, either originating in this reality or another. These memories are stored not in the mind, but in the soul. At the point of death, the mind ceases to exist, but not the soul; keeping in mind it is non-aging, thus making it what we would term “immortal”. During the reincarnation process, the soul moves into its new mind (hence its definition as a mental companion), stockpiling memories of past lives. This concept does a good deal to explain mental phenomena such as déjà vu, pareidolia, and even false memory. In conclusion of this introductory chapter; I sincerely hope I have introduced the theory in such a way that others can understand. A summary of what we have learned so far according to TBR:
    Only minds, mental contents, and the soul exist;
    The soul is an eternal mental companion;
    There is a single, all-mind encompassing reality;
    When one “dies”, reincarnation is imminent.




    Hello Eli. Thanks very much for posting this. As you said, this is simply the introduction. I look forward to first chapter of the theory itself. But for now, since a thoughtful proposal deserves an equally thoughtful and hopefully helpful response, here are a few impressions... (sorry for the sloppy copy and paste job of your intro. I did it so I could read it while responding)

    The first few paragraphs of the introduction may be doing a possible disservice to the eventual theory.
    It comes across as somewhat defensive. You state:

    "I’m not a tin-foil hat wearing “flat Earther”. I’m not a dreamer. I’m a realist; this is the basis of the theory. I’m not putting this idea forward for it to be ridiculed or savaged by what we consider to be the pillars of the universe: mathematics and science. To understand, to have an open mind about this theory; you must be able to detach yourself from what you were taught as fact. Einstein’s theories of relativity; Newton’s laws; Lemaȋtre’s theory of the Big Bang and the expansion of the universe. You must, for the sake of the pursuit of knowledge, question what the majority accepts as fact."


    This seems unnecessary and a bit distracting. It may appear (unintentionally) that you are asking the reader to be unscientific in the name of having an open mind. I sincerely doubt that this was your intention, as it seems contradictory. At least it did to me. Perhaps some slight rewording might avoid that.

    Toward the end of the introduction, you write:

    "In conclusion of this introductory chapter; I sincerely hope I have introduced the theory in such a way that others can understand. A summary of what we have learned so far according to TBR:
    Only minds, mental contents, and the soul exist;
    The soul is an eternal mental companion;
    There is a single, all-mind encompassing reality;
    When one “dies”, reincarnation is imminent."


    Some rewording may help the reader here. When you say "what we have learned so far", it sounds like the premises (which you may intend to build upon) have been demonstrated so far or are self-evident.
    Unfortunately, they are far from being demonstrated, at least in what is given so far. If you intend to provide evidence later on, it would be clearer to say so at this point, imho.

    Hope my two cents is helpful. Take it with a grain of salt, as i am merely a reader of philosophy, not a teacher nor an expert. I find the subject matter very intriguing. Looking forward to where you are going with this theory, which has much potential. One wants the runner to have their best race, and not trip up on something relatively small.

    Thanks again for sharing! :) (Y) (L)
  • Dogmatic Realism
    Dogmatic Realism?

    Sure, why not? Under most circumstances, i would consider myself to be a realist. And Dogmatism is very persuasive. I could totally subscribe to a philosophy by dogs. And maybe even a dog-based spirituality. At this point, there might be little to lose! :D (j/k. sorry for the interruption. Now back to our regularly scheduled thread, already in progress... )
  • Why ought one be good?

    Thank you very much for the reply. There is certainly much in your messages to consider.


    It might be worth reading again David Hume's introduction of the famous 'is/ought' distinction which addresses just this point:

    In every system of morality, which I have hitherto met with, I have always remarked, that the author proceeds for some time in the ordinary ways of reasoning, and establishes the being of a God, or makes observations concerning human affairs; when all of a sudden I am surprised to find, that instead of the usual copulations of propositions, is, and is not, I meet with no proposition that is not connected with an ought, or an ought not. This change is imperceptible; but is however, of the last consequence. For as this ought, or ought not, expresses some new relation or affirmation, 'tis necessary that it should be observed and explained; and at the same time that a reason should be given, for what seems altogether inconceivable, how this new relation can be a deduction from others, which are entirely different from it. But as authors do not commonly use this precaution, I shall presume to recommend it to the readers; and am persuaded, that this small attention would subvert all the vulgar systems of morality, and let us see, that the distinction of vice and virtue is not founded merely on the relations of objects, nor is perceived by reason.

    Treatise on Human Nature.


    So what Hume is saying that there is a fundamental difference between reasoning based on 'is' and on 'ought'. He is saying that any argument based on an 'ought' is different in kind from propositions based on 'is' and 'is not' statements, and that the basis for this kind of argument is generally assumed, without any grounds having been given.
    Wayfarer

    Quoted for truth (whatever truth may be). Thank you very much for sharing it. Hume nailed that one right on the head, imho. It may seem like Logic 101. Maybe it is. But it is a common sense sometimes rarer than a rooster's dentures. And it would be good to remind myself of it before i open my mouth to speak, in actual life or online. Might prevent some confusion and wasted time, to say the least.
  • Why ought one be good?
    One can sometimes feel trapped between the law-breakers and the law-makers. By which i mean, that if unbridled self-interest is someone's prime motivation, it generally makes little ultimate difference whether they prefer to wear a ski mask or an expensive three-piece suit when doing their business. These two extremes, though superficially different, are like mirror images of each other. They may actually indirectly cause and prolong the existence of each other. A "common type" criminal may have all sorts of rationalizations for their actions which may or may not be accurate.

    But when there are too many thieves, a scared public may accept harsh laws and enforcers who may not have the wisdom of Solomon or the compassion of a saint. One remembers A Clockwork Orange, where the thugs became officially sanctioned all too easily, and continued their brutality behind a badge.

    A more financial type example is how the sugar replacement Stevia was declared possibly dangerous, highly regulated and even illegal to use as an food ingredient until fairly recently. Once certain large companies were ready to introduce their own Stevia products, then Stevia miraculously became a healthy alternative. One can think of other "herbs" and their proponents given even harsher "justice".

    And that is without mentioning the hyper-competitive, ultra-violent champions of Law (secular and Holy) and Flag (national or other) who seem to descend to the level of power where "right makes might" and "might makes (you see that I am) right". This is not necessarily referring to a specific nation, political party, movement, or person. It is so widespread that is seems to be in the drinking water. Like the gallows humor version of the Golden Rule where "the one with the gold makes the rules".

    As Gandolf said, "Tell me friend, when did Saruman the Wise abandon reason for madness?"

    Hopefully, this course is reversible. (And hopefully this post is somehow relevant to this thread.)
  • Why ought one be good?

    Thanks for sharing your insights. :)


    Yes, those distinctions would be a big improvement over the vague and judgmental "wrong". More precise and helpful, definitely. And I would hope if someone wanted to criticize a post of mine, they would say i was being quite "unjust and unchaste!" :D