beyond the merely sensory/ rational experience, then, yes, no problem. — John

In what sense is it "beyond" sensory/rational experience? Is it beyond them in the same sense that taste is beyond sight?

With the rational intellect we understand the outer, with the intuitive intellect we understand the inner. The outer is the immanent in the sense that it is within sense experience; the inner is the transcendent in the sense that it is both beyond sense experience and rationally discursive understanding.

So the transcendent movement is not a movement upwards, but a movement inwards. — John

Why is it transcendent? Transcendent is an ontological category, you know that right?

I never said that sex is inherently necessarily immoral. — Heister Eggcart

But you did ask why "sex isn't necessarily immoral" which is kind of strange if you think it isn't necessarily immoral. Anyway, what does "inherently" mean to say in the above sentence?

Well Terrapin is saying something reasonable - I don't see it identical with the point YOU are making in this post however. Apokrisis is just re-stating the same things he always says and he always tries to apply to everything without discrimination almost. Don't get me wrong, it's an interesting perspective but definitely a lot more limited than apokrisis takes it to be.

I think the difficulty for Schopenhauer, is that he never encountered a 'spiritual exemplar' who could help him understand how to 'actualise' such a mode of life, so for him it remained a remote (and impossible) ideal. — Wayfarer

I'm not sure Schopenhauer really wanted to be a "spiritual exemplar" himself. As he put it, the job of the philosopher is different than the job of the saint.

For that reason, a central belief of Buddhists is that being born as a human is both very rare and extremely fortunate, because only in the human realm can you hear and practice the teachings. — Wayfarer

This is nothing but anthropomorphism if you ask me, and definitely not "central" in my humble opinion.

That's why it has to be interpreted carefully! If you read the early texts, the unique station of the Buddha is precisely transcendence of samsara, meaning, escape from the cycle of continued re-birth. This is stated precisely, dogmaticaly, and unequivocally.

According to Buddhist mythology, beings are continuously and unwillingly born into the six realms of existence. (This is where there is a strong parallel with Schopenhauer's 'Will' and the Buddhist 'tṛṣṇā', the 'thirst' or 'craving' which 'drives' the wheel of life-and-death.)

In the early schools, the difference between the life of ordinary mortals and that of the Buddha was posed as an absolute duality, with nothing whatever in common. It was one of the doctrinal innovations associated with the beginning of Mahāyāna that introduced the idea that they're not really separate realms, but the same realm seen from completely different perspectives. In a memorable aphorism, 'samsara is Nirvāṇa grasped, Nirvāṇa is samsara released'. It also introduced the idea of the bodhisattva, one who can be re-born voluntarily for the benefit of all beings, rather than 'escaping' into Nirvāṇa for once and for all. (Scholars see a possible cross-cultural influence between Buddhism and Christianity, via the silk road, in such ideas.) — Wayfarer

Yes but the non-duality of Samsara and Nirvana is clear - so I'm asking you, conceptually, how is it possible to speak of transcendence? Do you simply mean a transcendence of one perspective to another? The transcendence from ignorance to understanding?

Again, you say 'merely', as if 'understanding reality' is a trivial matter. Who, really, 'understands reality'? — Wayfarer

It's "merely" understanding reality because there is no transcendent there. Merely refers to the fact that there is nothing more than that.

Life is hollow without love. Were this not true, then I'd have long ago rolled back over and into the grave from whence I came. — Heister Eggcart

Okay but why do you think love is in short supply?

I don't get this joke. He fucked God? His hand? dafuq? — Heister Eggcart

fuck bitches — Heister Eggcart

Why God or his hand when the bit that I quoted you on spoke about bitches?

I didn't say that they did, only that priorities can be hard to straighten out. — Heister Eggcart

Sure so? This isn't to say that life is long and love is short... So I'm asking you what in particular grounds your belief regarding this.

fuck bitches — Heister Eggcart

>:O As far as I know he really only fucked one properly >:)

I am very familiar with Zen literature, but it is often quoted out of context, as it was greatly popularised by the Beat generation and their successors in the 1950's and 60's. Read that way, seems to fit comfortably with existential or nihilist philosophy, but that is far from the truth of the matter. Zen Buddhism is still Buddhism, and the 'meta-narrative' of Buddhism is transcendence of the realm of samsara. And yes, Mahāyāna Buddhism asserts the 'non-duality of Samsara and Nirvāṇa' but again that is something that must be interpreted carefully. It is still a religion, concerned with transcendence of mundane (worldly) existence, without that dimension the sayings of Bodhidharma and the other Zen patriarchs are just desk-calendar slogans. — Wayfarer

Okay this may be so, but you haven't outlined a "correct understanding" either. If Samsara and Nirvana are non-dual - not two - how is it possible to talk of transcendence? There is no transcendence - the removal of ignorance isn't transcending anything, but merely understanding reality.

Nietszche, Schopenhauer, and many others interpreted the Buddhist philosophy of śūnyatā to mean 'voidness' or 'nothingness' (indeed there is a whole book on that subject, The Cult of Nothingness: The Philosophers and the Buddha, Roger-Pol Droit), but I think this is also based on a fundamental misconception, or rather, the absence of insight into any higher truth. — Wayfarer

I will look into this.

They're only aware of 'down'. They're not aware of anything 'up'. That is a deficiency, not a virtue. — Wayfarer

But what if down is really up? If man lost paradise, then down (back where man came from) is exactly where he must be going.

Those men did not live entirely solitary lives. One might like to think that they've nothing but "God's love" in their life, yet I'd argue they've merely ignored those in their life that support them. — Heister Eggcart

Why do you think they ignored those in their life who supported them? For example, what would you have had St. Augustine do, for example, not to ignore those in his life who supported him?

Life wouldn't suck so much ass if love wasn't a rarity. — Heister Eggcart

Hmm but what would you say to folks like Augustine, Aquinas, etc. who found God's love to be sufficient for life not to "suck"? Do you think they're wrong? God's love isn't sufficient?

LOOOL >:O you know mate that Terrapin not only "did a course or two of philosophy at uni", he taught philosophy at fucking uni - maybe if you had attended his class you would have failed ;)

Ah, I've heard of that first one. I'll look into it (Y) — Heister Eggcart

I think you in particular would like him :P

I have. I think that he'd agree with me that love is short and life is long. Seneca's gall is rather inspiring to me. — Heister Eggcart

Why do you think that "love is short"? Have you read, for example, Augustine's Confessions to see how God's love plays a role in guiding his life, and ultimately changing him - always there with him even when he didn't see it?

It simply doesn't interest me, and I don't see the point. Philosophy is supposed to be the cure, not the disease. — Wayfarer

Really now.... really...? What if philosophy is precisely the disease that must be cured? (Wittgenstein would agree ;) ) Do you remember the story of Bodhidharma and the Chinese King coming to him, troubled by his mind, and Bodhidharma saying "I have this stick with me, show me your mind and I will quiet it", and the King, afraid - there was this bearded guy with a stick, and he was all alone with him - spent some time, and said "there is no mind, all is quiet"?

What if what Cioran, Nietzsche et al. note - that the animals have something that we don't - what if that's true? What if what we're really looking for - paradise - is what we have lost when we ceased being like the animals? We are concerned about meaning (the meaning of death for example) - always seeking something - but the animals seek nothing, they are at peace in the moment - despite their awareness of the transience of life.

Life's too long in my estimation! — Heister Eggcart

You should read Seneca's "On the Brevity of Life" then :P you said you liked Roman philosophy ;)

I haven't, though he seems like someone I'd like. What do you suggest I read first? — Heister Eggcart

"The Trouble with Being Born" (if you want a more mature work) or "On the Heights of Despair" if you want an introductory work (also happens to be his first work). "Short History of Decay" and "The Fall Into Time" should be next.

I took 'Krishnamurti as homeboy' as a slight on both myself, and him. — Wayfarer

How is that a slight on you or him? I know you've found his work interesting, I suppose that must be because he isn't labelled an atheist and a nihilist on Wikipedia, otherwise you wouldn't have bothered with his work no? :s

Have you read something by Cioran homeboy? :P I'm actually curious what you think of him if you have.

I have noticed that discussions with 'Agostino' quickly degenerate into name-calling and ad homs. — Wayfarer

And I have noticed that discussions with you reduce to "he's a nihilist/materialist/atheist, dismissed". Really Wayfarer, you call this philosophy? Reading about Cioran on Wikipedia and taking that as sufficient to give you permission to dismiss him so that you can avoid engaging with his thought, merely because he's labelled as a "nihilist" there?

Furthermore, there wasn't even a single ad hominem in my previous post. Not a single one. So on top of everything else, you're lying as well.

>:O

People steal. — Heister Eggcart

Common bruv it's just a poem, we wouldn't go through all the hassle of stealing :P

:s Yeah if you actually bothered to read anything more from him apart from Wikipedia you may discover something different.

But we left that stage a long time ago: we would have to destroy so much to recover paradise

How interesting that your homeboy J. Krishnamurti would say precisely the same thing... destroy much (your conditioning) to recover paradise. Don't you see that you are just being biased?

Yes, so no. — Heister Eggcart

LOL Why hide it? :P

Do you mind sharing the poem? :D

Meaning?

Sure, well that's plausible. Higher animals - elephants, some birds, dogs, cats, primates - are 'beings', although again, they're not human beings. — Wayfarer

awareness of death and the transience of life — Wayfarer

What they wouldn't be able to do, is to contemplate the meaning of death as you say — Agustino

F. Nietzsche: "Consider the cattle, grazing as they pass you by: they do not know what is meant by yesterday or today, they leap about, eat, rest [...], fettered to the moment and its pleasure and displeasure [...] [This moment] is a matter for wonder: [...] nothing before it came, again nothing after it has gone"

E.M. Cioran: "The regret of not being plants brings us closer to paradise than any religion. One is in paradise only as a plant. But we left that stage a long time ago: we would have to destroy so much to recover paradise! Sin is the impossibility of forgetfulness. The fall - emblem of our human condition - is a nervous exacerbation of consciousness. Thus a human being can only be next to God, whereas plants sleep in him the sleep of eternal forgetfulness. The more awake we are, the greater the nostalgia that sends us in quest of paradise, the sharper the pangs of remorse that reunite us with the vegetable world"

Obviously I don't know for sure, but I would say 'probably not'. — John

Why? Most people would say probably not. Why is that?

Pollock - a big flopping fish? Polock or Polack? A flopping person from Poland? Either would work. — Bitter Crank

>:O Pollock - it's a metaphor for the penis which can flop around just like the pollock does!

Assess its size against the pine needles. — John

I was tricked :’(

I think the awareness of death and the transience of life is one of the peculiar attributes of humans. — Wayfarer

But if they have some awareness of death, then to me they already know this. What they wouldn't be able to do, is to contemplate the meaning of death as you say. But that's already different from simply being aware of transience.

Are you kidding me mate? That's a fucking big white pollock, if you had that you'd have to carry it over your shoulder!!!

Well can it have such a thought?

Sig Freud!

You'd better come into the office and lie down on the couch right away. You're a very sick man.

It is interesting that you wouldn't mind standing next to someone who was smelly, but wouldn't want to be seen by others as having tolerated their smelliness. Shades of other-directedness.

At some point, life becomes easier when we come to terms with our own shit, literally. Raising children (which I haven't done) and raising dogs (which I have) are effective at busting up our cleanliness obsessions, and alleviating the shock of the stool -- that what goes in comes out and in sometimes quite identifiable condition. Once our young dog got into the dog food and stuffed herself. A bit later, while I was sitting on the back step, she crawled into my lap and vomited up an enormous Science Diet slushy. Yuck. But, because it was OUR dog, I wasn't freaked out--as I would otherwise have been. What she ate was sometimes quite identifiable when I picked up her stool for disposal. Like bits of raw carrot. Chewed up and swallowed bits of fabric. Wild baby rabbits swallowed whole were still whole.

Why feed a dog expensive dog food? Because it promises to produce a very firm, drier stool -- easier to pick up. Turned out to be true.

Having chronic bowel problems has helped many people understand that unexamined shit may not be worth excreting. Stools are a window into our bowels -- a place we do not want to go ourselves. — Bitter Crank

:D But I do know all this, and I do have a look at my stool briefly every time I go to the toilet. I'm not freaked out by stool regardless of what I see - I've seen for example dried pieces of tomato, I've even picked up pieces of stool, I've even seen blood in stool. That's why I say I was shocked - I'm not a person who gets easily disgusted, and especially not by my own stools. But that was something entirely different. I wouldn't have imagined that if I would see such a stool I would have such a reaction. It was a primal and more basic reaction.

Thanks for sharing, great exposition! (Y) The Chinese have indeed a hidden fountain of knowledge and wisdom that is little known in the rest of the world. This has been the secret to their advantage - the Chinese are humble, but they have always won in history, yet no one knows this. China has been the world's largest economy by GDP for most of human history, and now occupies that position once again... Study of Chinese philosophy has made me realise that virtue and success aren't separate - they are one and the same in the sense that there is no real success without virtue.

Natural disgust prevents you from re-eating those tasty seeds, thus protecting you from worms and e-coli infection. Advertising does not create anything in humanity that is not already there, it elicts, distorts, redirects, exaggerates, trains, feelings that are pretty universal. — unenlightened

But by re-directing them it seems to me that it can create entirely new combinations of feelings and reactions that we would never have before. And this isn't only in terms of intensity, but in terms of the whole experience of whatever the situation is.

The way I see it, this modern culture not only attempts to reshape people's reactions and way of life, but more importantly, it succeeds in doing so - it has people who aren't affiliated with the propaganda actually participating in it and promoting it, without understanding what they're actually doing. It uses them - like an ideological virus, infecting minds and being further spread by it.

Your only best last hope for the liberty of your own mind is philosophy. Buy some today and install it at once. You really cannot afford to miss this discussion. — unenlightened

See, this is the problem, even among the truth there is infiltration.

:-O >:O (Y)

Do you think that virtue doesn't actually have anything to do with that, or rather that it CAN'T have anything to do with that? In other words do you think it would be just a true statement, or a necessarily true statement in order for us to have a coherent account of the activity?

Your only best last hope for the liberty of your own mind is philosophy. Buy some today and install it at once. You really cannot afford to miss this discussion. — unenlightened

>:O

Let me tell you a comfortable lie. All this stuff only works on the great unwashed. You are educated and intelligent, and so your freedom and independence are assured. — unenlightened

:-x


Yes the sweat smell thing is interesting. Personally, despite very strong pressures from my environment and from my parents as a teenager to inoculate in me the idea that sweat is disgusting and no one can stand it, I never felt that way. I never felt "bothered" by staying next to someone who smelled. Maybe I was concerned about being seen around such a person, but never so much by the smell itself. So I agree with you, that seems to be something that has been socially imposed on us.

Now, to talk of something really disgusting, which almost made me vomit, despite no propaganda being involved - please brace yourselves. Once upon a time I ate a lot of sesame seeds. The next day, when I went to the toilet (to do a dirt, not a wee as Borat would say), I saw that my stool was covered completely in those sesame seeds. I can swear that I've never seen a more disgusting scene than that - it wasn't just that I didn't like it and found it somehow disgusting, but that it was repugnant - as in I felt it driving me away, and my stomach physical turned upside down at that sight. Ever since, I'm actually afraid of eating sesame seeds in large quantities because of that. So what explains such a phenomenon? I think this particular repugnance is natural - in our mind, a repugnance of such a sight has been built by evolution - the seeds being associated with the presence of worms or parasites, that we would be compelled to avoid - hence the strong reaction. Anyway, when this happened I was left a bit stunned, because I'm generally very hard to disgust. A dog licking me on the face for example isn't that disgusting as it is for some (not that it is enjoyable, of course I don't like it - but I'm not exactly repulsed by it automatically). If I saw someone eating shit, I wouldn't be that disgusted either. But this was something coming from a deep deep level, I could feel it. It was a revolution that was very deep below the level where reason activates.

So I think there are both naturally occurring responses and induced ones.

No that doesn't really make sense. The asymmetry involved is that virtue certainly doesn't have anything to do with the feelings of your penis, and the physical sensations it has or doesn't have. BUT - virtue may very well have something to do with keeping your penis away from the crevasse (which is an action that is analysed regardless of the feelings of your penis).

You do realize that virtue has nothing to do with how your penis feels when in this or that crevasse, right? — Heister Eggcart

>:O so true, so true...