Why do you describe the content of thought as "incorrect understandings". Do you think that thought is necessarily wrong? — Metaphysician Undercover

I'm sorry, I didn't mean to say that. In a surprise move, I was for once too stingy with words. :-)

What I was trying to say is that it's my understanding that Buddhism defines the problem as being an inaccurate understanding of our situation. That is, ideas within the content of thought which are incorrect. As example, perhaps my assumption is that "me" is real, and perhaps Buddhism suggests it is not, something like that.

So again, if Buddhism is a process of editing thought content, isn't analysis and philosophy inevitable?

To illustrate through a contrast, let's imagine that we were to instead define the problem which is being addressed as arising primarily from the nature of thought itself. In such a case, the suggested remedy might be simply reducing the volume and frequency of thought by various mechanical methods, which wouldn't necessarily require much if any philosophy.

This is much of what I've been getting at in many of my posts, but it's not clear to me whether the manner in which I express this is adequate for effective sharing. You know, it's clear enough to me, but if my use of language stinks then it might understandably not be that clear to others.

So long as the problem is defined as residing within the content of thought (ie. incorrect understandings) isn't philosophy inevitable?

I am not interested in the physical possibility but our understanding of such a possibility ( how we use religious language to describe it) . — Wittgenstein

Space "creates", that is defines the Earth as a thing. It would seem to do so without taking any action, or even existing (no weight and mass etc). Understandable?

I think it would be a misunderstanding to confuse our kind of love with God's love. — Wittgenstein

One problem which I assume you are aware of (given your screen name) is that at the moment we assign the noun God to a phenomena we are joining an assumption that God is a thing separate from other things, for that is the function of nouns, to apply a label to such a division. Once the assumption of division is accepted that opens the door to endless debate over how to define the properties of this thing. God is this, or God is that etc.

If we were to decline the assumption of division, and not automatically assume God to be a separate thing, then it would seem the discussion and debate around defining God's properties could be discarded. This might be a very efficient way to sweep a ton of confusion off the table.

As always, I would suggest it could be quite productive to shift some focus to the properties of the tool being used to conduct the investigation. Thought operates by dividing a single unified reality in to conceptual objects. It attempts to impose a pattern of division on everything it observes. In our everyday lives at human scale this has proven a useful device, but attempts to impose that process of division on the very largest of scales may be inherently flawed.

Consider the word "space". As a noun "space" presumes that space is a thing separate from other things. But the deeper we look in somethings the harder it is to find the boundary between something and nothing.

Can't comment on Brexit details at all, and so will offer a hopeful bottom line reminder to our Brit friends across the pond.

Britain was a very successful country for centuries before the European Union. Brexit doesn't make sense to me, but if all goes wrong and the worst happens, the chaos will pass at some point and the grit and brains which have long defined your people will succeed at adapting to whatever the new environment turns out to be.

If there is any value to Brexit, it might be to remind you of who you are in times of crisis. When everyone else was running and hiding and making criminal deals, you raised your middle finger and jammed it in the eye of the Nazis. That's who you still are.

Here in the looney colonies across the pond we are now counting down the final month of the Trump presidency. 29, 28, 27.... So we've had a contest to see which our countries could be the stupidest, and while it's not clear who won, there is light emerging at the end of the long dark tunnel.

Perhaps it helps to remind ourselves who it is that has created rules like "paradoxical" and "nonsensical". A single semi-suicidal species only recently living in caves on a single planet in one of billions of galaxies. That is, in comparison to anything the scale of gods, we are far less than a dog, more like an amoeba.

Given how incredibly small we are in relation to the subject of God, typically a collection of theories regarding the most fundamental nature of everything everywhere, it's perhaps nonsensical to expect that either religion or science will ever get to the bottom of this. If we don't have such an expectation, then we won't be frustrated or confused.

So what then? Forget the whole thing and go play golf?

Ok, maybe, but not necessarily. Even if we were to conclude a search for useful explanations is essentially pointless, there is still the realm of experience to explore. Experience doesn't have to be a means to the end of explanations. It can be pursued for it's own value.

While it may not be possible to answer this question, it may be possible to resolve it. My sense is that the question arises from a psychological need, and if that need can be met, the question melts away. Not answered, but resolved.

Another problem afflicting such discussions is that many religious authorities, and philosophers too, tend to gravitate towards complex fancy talk language because the more elusive and mysterious they can frame the subject the more they brand themselves as the rare experts who have unlocked the secrets etc. You know, as example, lawyers get elected to political office and then craft laws in complex language, which conveniently requires us to hire lawyers to understand the law.

When l talk about God, l feel like a blind man talking about something our there in the world. Except that it transcends every sense and conception familiar to me in this world. — Wittgenstein

As a barking dog myself I doubt I can fix this, but here's a try anyway.

In the age of science I find it interesting to compare the God concept to space. Space is real, and yet invisible, and having none of the properties we typically use to define existence. Real, but non-existent. Space is not a "thing" because the concept of things implies a division which doesn't seem an appropriate way to describe something which is a single continuous unbroken phenomena present at every scale. And yet, not being a thing itself, space defines all things. This secular analysis is hopefully somewhat sensible and intelligible, and yet at the same time seems rich with the kind of baffling contradictions we often encounter in religious language. A thing which is not a thing which defines all things etc = headache. :-)

In recent years I've become ever less confident that this "God is like space" idea is just an analogy. Perhaps what religious people have been sensing and attempting to define is actually space itself? We in the age of science tend to assume space is just a container, a realm of dead nothing with no life or intelligence of it's own, but such assumptions are very far from proven.

The following excellent documentary explores the nature of nothing in considerable detail from a science perspective. Interesting!

As Wayfarer said, this is a philosophy forum (an online place where people come to chat about philosophical ideas — Coben

Yes, but it seems reasonable that one of the things we inspect, challenge and chat about are any limitations involved in the methodology we are using.

Now if we go against those heuristics while, it seemed to me, putting up other words of masters as authority, it seems like there are some missing assertions. — Coben

I hear what you're saying, there is a conflict between treating these teachers as authorities, and then ignoring what they are teaching. Part of the problem may be that those who are truly sincere about walking away from analysis etc tend to be culturally invisible, and thus never become teachers. Thus these fields tend to become dominated by people like me, those who like to endlessly talk about non-talking. :-)

I notice a lot of team identification — Coben

Yes, agreed. "I am a this or a that, this is our tribe, these are our slogans" etc. Imho, this tribal phenomena too can be traced back to it's source in the divisive nature of thought. Thought conceptually divides "me" from "everything else" with "me" perceived to be very small, and thus vulnerable, so we attempt to attach ourselves to something larger, a group, an ideology etc.

If we attempt to cure this divisive tribalism within the realm of philosophy, we wind up creating yet another tribe, the anti-tribal tribe.

Native peoples inhabited North America for 10,000 years or more before Europeans arrived. During that time they seem to have developed a deep reverence for the land which they somehow connected to a Great Spirit which lied beyond that which could be observed.

To the best of my limited knowledge, native peoples didn't have elaborate complex philosophies such as were common in Europe but instead their psychic connection to reality arose primarily from experience. You know, they lived directly on the land every day of their lives for 10,000 years.

Such experience is still available as it's really only dependent on time invested and a willingness to open oneself emotionally to the experience.

A philosopher will ask, "experience of what"? Such a question is a retreat from the real world back in to the symbolic realm of abstraction. To the degree one can set the symbolic aside and focus instead on the experience of reality, the experience can mature to the point where the question of "what" is no longer that interesting. This doesn't answer the question of "what" but it does resolve it.

The question "experience of what?" arises from a state of need. To the degree that need is met, the question melts away. As example, you probably don't care about any of this while you're having wild sex. :-)

Point being, this could be another way to approach the issue, by shifting focus from explanations to experience, from the symbolic realm to the real world.

Another way to say it...

Imagine trying to explain the Internet to your dog. Your dog can see the Net on your computer screen. But he can only experience it as patterns of blinking lights, as he doesn't have the equipment needed to understand the level of abstraction involved. No amount of teaching on your part can solve this because his limitations are built in to his equipment.

Like your dog, we can see reality. And like your dog we can explain it in a very limited manner which has some little degree of truth. And like your dog it's likely we simply don't have the equipment necessary to get much farther.

But like your dog, I will continue ignorantly barking as follows... :-)

We are made of thought. Thought operates by a process of division. Thus, we see division everywhere we look. God is often proposed to be something beyond division. Like for example, space, a single continuous phenomena uniting everything at every scale.

But, being made of the medium of thought which operates by division, we immediately assign a noun like God to this phenomena in an attempt to divide it conceptually from everything else. And so something proposed to be beyond division is immediately divided, throwing the entire subject in to an bottomless morass of contradictory confusion.

And so, like your dog in front of the Net, we look at the screen of reality and bark things like "blinking lights, blinking lights!"

I'm reminded of a story I heard years ago on NPR. A team of doctors were treating patients recovering from heart attacks. The doctors wanted to help their patients chill out with as few drugs as possible so they decided to teach their patients meditation. The doctors were concerned that any philosophies that came along with the meditation instruction might alienate some of the patients and thus keep them from benefiting from this treatment. So the doctors ruthlessly stripped all philosophy from the instruction, presenting meditation in a purely mechanical non-partisan manner.

It seemed the doctors were wise enough to see the benefits that can come from the experience of silence, and the problems which can arise from attempts to explain that experience.

I guess when one has just had a heart attack that helps one become quite practical about one's health and a parade of glamour based enticements are not needed to interest one in things like meditation.

I think Buddhism, and especially Zen, makes it clear that the kinds of analysis be carried out in this thread, in this context, by at least a number of the participants is a dead end at best and an obstacle to the goals of Buddhist practice at best. — Coben

I'm not qualified to comment on what Buddhism is. Assuming the above to be true, and we wish to keep doing that which is not suggested :-) it seems reasonable to wonder why Buddhist culture appears to be clogged to overflowing with the kind of analysis Coben is referring to.

I'm sincerely interested in things like why faith persists in an atheist culture which explicitly rejects faith, analysis persists in a Zen culture which seems to explicitly decline analysis, and conflict persists within a Catholic culture explicitly about peace. What is the underlying mechanism which keeps pushing faith, analysis and conflict forward even when a person's chosen philosophy would seem to forbid them?

The best I can suggest is that philosophy (edits to the content of thought) is a surface level activity which addresses symptoms generated by the nature of thought.

This theory might explain phenomena such as a Catholic philosophy which is explicitly about bringing people together in peace, but which nonetheless still experiences a lot of division and conflict. The well intended philosophy wallpapers over the symptoms to a degree, but the underlying source of division (nature of thought) continues to belch out division like a river spring. When the ever flowing stream of division meets resistance at one point, like water flowing from a spring it simply finds a way around the obstacle and keeps on expressing itself somewhere else.

And so philosophy becomes a game of wack-a-mole. We can declare faith to be really bad, and so the atheist stops having faith in religious authorities, and begins having faith in science authorities. We can declare analysis to be bad, and then insist on analyzing why that is so. We can declare hate to be bad, and then find ourselves hating fellow Catholics who have a different interpretation of this doctrine.

To me, an important piece of evidence is that it seems that every ideology ever invented inevitably sub-divides in to competing internal factions which come in to conflict with each other. This apparently universal pattern suggests that the division and conflict we are attempting to address arises from the nature of thought, that which all ideologies are made of.

There might well be a sign over the portal of most Zen monasteries NO PHILOSOPHIZING. (Anyone who has attended one of the 10-day Vipassana retreats would know that philosophical questions are likewise discouraged.) If you try asking tricky philosophical questions to a Zen teacher they’ll most likely whack you or assign you to cleaning duties. — Wayfarer

Ok, thanks for this education, that sounds good.

As best I can understand it, the source of the philosophizing is the transformation agenda being sold, which in new age hippy lingo is often referred to as a "becoming trip".

What I've been attempting to suggest in my posts is that the glamorous (and perhaps unrealistic) transformation agenda could be replaced with a common sense management agenda. Now the student is not on an ego feeding becoming trip journey from A to B but instead just attending to routine mental "cleaning duties". Philosophy no longer needed.

In my view, so long as the problem is defined as arising from the content of thought (a need to understand this or that) then students are inevitably going to think about that which they are supposed to understand, and then ego is likely to hijack the process, providing yet more distraction.

If the problem is instead defined as arising more from the nature of thought (in my view is a more accurate analysis) then we are no longer looking at a philosophical problem, but a far simpler mechanical issue. The model for this perspective is readily available in the manner in which we relate to every other function of the body. You know, we don't turn being physically hungry in to a complex and sophisticated philosophical problem requiring years of study under a master and all of that. Instead, we are simple, practical and direct, and go get something to eat. It seems to me psychic hunger can be addressed in much the same manner.

An Argument Against

The problem I see with my comments above is that trading a transformation agenda for a management agenda tends to strip the glamour out of this, and then nobody is interested, as we can see on these topics through out the forum and beyond.

Thus I remain open minded to a notion that religions that have lasted thousands of years may know what they're doing in all their various techniques for maintaining the glamour. You know, the ceremonies, the costumes, the fancy talk, the authority figures, a transformation agenda with it's promise of great riches awaiting ahead etc.

I would refer here to Catholicism, a tradition I am far more familiar with than Buddhism or Zen. Philosophers will often say Catholicism isn't logical etc etc. Ok, but the thing is, human beings aren't logical either, generally speaking, but emotional creatures. Thus, any analysis which attempts to be purely rational (as I'm attempting in my posts) is reasonably declared out of touch with reality.

Point being, any religion that took my advice above might very well collapse in just a few weeks.

The part of the UK which is going to have to accommodate many thousands of stranded lorries is going into lockdown. — Punshhh

You should move the US where unbelievable really embarrassing utterly crazy dangerous nonsense could never possibly happen.

....and in a community where abstract mulling is generally and regularly suggested to be something to avoid. — Coben

It's the ill who typically show up at the hospital.

So it seems it would often be chronic overthinkers who have suffered from that excess who would go looking for solutions, and perhaps wind up on the Zen teacher's doorstep. If there is a big sign posted on that door that says "NO THINKING ALLOWED!" then the student will likely turn away because, as an overthinker, they have a thousand questions which they probably feel the need to analyze.

If the goal of the Zen teacher is to serve the student they would seem to have no choice but to meet the new student where they currently are, which would seem to entail a lot of abstract mulling.

So perhaps the old master's desire to maintain the authority of the book has a valid purpose? Could the book, traditions, the teachings, the authority structures, the costumes, the ceremonies, the implied promises of something wonderful etc be the bait which lures the abstraction fueled becoming addicted student in to the trap of "dying to be reborn"?

You know, if you're trying to catch a mouse you use cheese as bait, not a cat.

Anything worthwhile about religions relates to the idea of transcending self, which is a lot harder to do than to say. — Wayfarer

We haven't yet demonstrated that transcending self is even possible, except perhaps for a tiny few who are so rare as to be largely irrelevant. It seems that before we invest many more centuries in discussing the transcendence of self it would be rational for someone to provide some compelling evidence such a thing is possible, and scalable to more than a rare few.

It seems far more rational and serious to focus on managing the reality of self. But such a topic isn't that glamorous, so let's just forget it and get back to the fun fancy talk.

The fact that transcending the self is so elusive could be quite instructive, as it suggests the primary obstacle lies not in the content of thought (that which can be changed) but rather in the nature of thought (that which can not be changed). This is actually good news (except for philosophers) as thought itself can be managed by relatively simple mechanical means.

Self is a pattern of habits, associations, graspings, ideas, and judgements - a cultural construct, a psychological mechanism, and the centre of our imaginary world. — Wayfarer

And it is this same collection of graspings which urges us to go to war with what we're made of, to try to overcome and defeat it. We're like the silly person looking for the magic food that once eaten will forever end our physical hunger.

Seeing through that, letting go of it, surpassing it, is certainly the aim of Zen. — Wayfarer

And so, to be credible, Zen teachers bear the burden of demonstrating that reaching such a goal is possible. We can gauge the degree to which Zen teachers believe in the value of their methods by how seriously they are attempting to meet that burden. I don't claim to know what efforts are being made to provide such evidence and would welcome education on that point.

Philosophers might be compared to astronomers. Astronomers are typically focused on physical things, while philosophers are typically focused on conceptual things. In both cases most of the attention is aimed at that which makes up the tiniest fraction of the picture. As example, the space which separates the above words from each other is essential and dominates this page, but is taken for granted and deemed not worthy of mention.

Why is our attention drawn away from the vast majority of reality and towards the tiniest fraction? Why the compelling preference for something over nothing?

We are made of thought. Thought operates by dividing reality in to conceptual objects. We are a thing making machine.

However, if the point is to deny the authority of words, then the saying that the authority of words ought to be avoided, itself must be disqualified. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes, and then the entire house of cards collapses, and we are left with nothing.

In my mind at least, it seems relevant that the vast majority of reality at every scale consists of space, that which we commonly refer to as nothing. Thus, a philosophy which has succeeded in destroying itself, a philosophy which has become nothing, might be considered a philosophy well aligned with the nature of reality. And isn't that generally the bottom line goal of philosophy?

I have tried discussing with you at length, but am now done. — Philosophim

You haven't discussed the underlying assumptions of your puzzle at all, you've simply repeatedly insisted that we accept them without question, a process of obedience which you have confused with philosophy.

Gentle reminder, members who start threads don't then own that thread. You have to report me to a mod because, um, you are not one. Neither of us have any ownership rights here at all, not even over our own posts, which a mod can delete at any time without warning.

Shoju, you are the only one who will carry on this teaching. Here is a book. It has been passed down from master to master for seven generations.

Isn't the old master attempting to hand Shoju a badge of authority? Shoju seems to take a purest position by throwing the badge of authority in the fire.

Is the old master perhaps wiser than the story suggests? Does the old master realistically recognize that if a teacher is to have any students they must put on some kind of show to attract the students, because the students are after all students, and not themselves masters.

And so the teacher says something like, "I am a great master and I will teach you how become something grand and glorious etc etc" Grand and glorious sounds appealing to the "everything is all about me" students, so they gather round and give the teacher their attention.

Hopefully somewhere down the road the master weens the students of these becoming trips, but before that can happen the students have to be reached where they currently are so that they will listen to the master.

This is an argument with my own positions. Like Shoju I tend to gravitate towards the purest positions, but the survival of the major religions over thousands of years is pretty strong evidence that a certain amount of show business is an essential ingredient of the stew.

I'm going to spend my time chatting with people who are willing to have a good discussion. — Philosophim

To you, a good discussion is one where arbitrary boundary lines are carefully drawn so that you don't suffer inconvenience. You want to draw a little circle and then insist that everyone must play within that circle.

What I'm attempting to do here is called philosophy. That is, I'm attempting toinspect and challenge the assumption that your puzzle is built upon, the common notion that human logic is relevant to the subject of gods. If logic were shown to not be relevant, then your little game is spoiled and you don't get to play the role of teacher who will reveal the correct answer when the student is ready.

Sorry, but not really my fault, as philosophy does have the nasty habit of often being quite inconvenient.

Its essentially a logic problem that tries to answer the question, "Is a God necessary or possible?" — Philosophim

It's essentially an illogical methodology which stubbornly refuses to examine the assumptions it is entirely dependent on, a process it calls "philosophy".

Just thought you might want to be reminded of this one more time.

You're welcome. :-)

I said the response to Covid is fear based, not fact based. — Book273

I love it that I can learn more about pandemics from quacky blowhards on little forums than I can from vast teams of scientific experts who have spent their entire careers studying the subject in exhaustive detail. Yea, what does the CDC know about facts? They're just a bunch of fearful little twerps, not manly man REAL experts such as ourselves.

There's always much talk about the 1%, and I wonder if anyone has read or researched extensively who exactly these people are and if there are trends in their philosophies or religious outlooks. — Xtrix

This seems an interesting question. One way to approach the question could be to consider that on a global scale the average American consumer is an economic elite. How we regard our wealth in regards to the very many around the world who have so much less might provide some insight in to the mindset of the American top 1%.

This isn't just a "you" thing - plenty of people are moving out of California because the state is ridiculously expensive and moving over to Texas where they can buy a house at a 1/4 the cost. — BitconnectCarlos

Sometimes a relatively small move can make a big difference. My house would cost 2 to 3 times as much just 2 hours a way over on the coast.

The point of any real spiritual teaching is simply to allow you to forget about your own self-importance and just learn to be (a) happy and (b) useful. — Wayfarer

It can be argued that the reason that few of us ever learn how to forget about our self importance is that the self importance is built in to the nature of what we're made of psychologically, thought. It's proven remarkably difficult to think oneself out of an obsession with "me", probably because such thinking feeds the division machine which creates and sustains the "me".

As example, while Buddhism appears to be a sincere well intentioned attempt to transcend our obsession with "me", we can observe that Buddhist principles and practices appear to be overwhelmingly about "me and my situation, me and my situation, me and my situation".

In order to do that, you have to cut through a lot of social conditioning and various kinds of other crap that has encumbered you from childhood onwards. — Wayfarer

In order to prove that this is possible, and scalable, it would be helpful to provide examples of those who have transcended the obsession with "me" by this method. While admitting vast ignorance of Buddhist culture, what I tend to see in all related traditions is that the acknowledged experts of a tradition are typically sitting on pillows in sheltered situations surrounded by adoring supporters. And you know, even I could appear transcendent in such favorable conditions.

If Buddhism is to be a kind of science and not just another dogma chanting religion, it would be very helpful if the experts of these methods would move out of the ashram, tell the adoring supporters to get lost, move in to a one bedroom apartment in a not so great part of town, and work 50 hours a week for minimum wage shoveling french fries at McDonalds. Their roommate should be a real scientist who carefully documents the emotional life of the Buddhist expert in such real world conditions. If the roommate could be an annoying sort of person that would add additional value to the experiment. :-)

I really don't think most Buddhist experts are scam artists. But it does seem reasonable to wonder why such experiments aren't a routine part of Buddhist culture.

While there may be more explanations given for the wrongness of murder, I think I covered the ones that are most commonly mentioned. I would love to hear some polite and constructive counter arguments to my claims and to start a pretty good dialogue. — TheHedoMinimalist

It seems sanctions against murder are required for the establishment of civilization. The law is an attempt to apply sanctions from the outside, while morality is an attempt to apply sanctions within each person.

For people who are not interested in achieving Buddhist goals or who simply want to use Buddhist ideas and stories as inspriation for their philosophical thinking, then it can certainly make sense. — Coben

This seems like a good solution. If a poster can state that their goal is not to solve a problem but rather to talk about it, ok, fair enough, go for it. If such a dividing line is made clear I withdraw all complaints and comments etc.

Yes, if the goal is in fact to head towards the goals of Buddhist practice. I agree with you here. It can lead to illusions of understanding things. Which can only be understood after long practice. — Coben

From the mechanical perspective, the required understanding can be reached pretty much immediately through the use of common sense, by anyone who is at least a bit serious.

If eating too much is giving me indigestion, the solution is to eat less.

If thinking too much is making me nutty, the solution is to think less.

It's a philosophy forum. — Wayfarer

And so we can apply reason to the discussion, and inspect and challenge the value of philosophy for a particular task just as we would anything else. If philosophy itself is judged to be above challenge, then it's not a philosophy forum but a dogma forum.

I would certainly agree that no none is obligated to pursue such an approach, and that "to each their own" and "whatever works" are a good rules, but we can note for the record that it's possible to discuss such subjects without the philosophical fancy talk. Should we conclude the problem of human suffering arises more from the nature of thought than the content of thought, then this is more of a mechanical issue than it is a conceptual one.

It seems reasonable to view the mind as just one more organ of the body which requires ongoing management to operate at an optimal level, and such management can be approached in a purely mechanical manner. For example, overthinking can be regarded in much the same way we consider overeating, or under sleeping.

An obstacle to such a mechanical perspective is that it's not glamorous, and the pursuit of glamour is largely what philosophical fancy talk on such issues is really about. A philosophical approach to human suffering can make vague promises about all kinds of exalted states and permanent solutions sold by impressive authority figures claiming to be experts etc. A philosophical approach has an appealing ego feeding story line which a mechanical approach can't match.

To return to the philosophical approach, we might start by examining the evidence provided by the universal nature of human psychological suffering. If everyone suffers to some degree or another, doesn't that suggest that the primary source of such suffering is something all humans have in common? What could that be other than thought itself?

To return to the philosophical approach, we can ask what it is about the nature of thought that may make overthinking a source of suffering.

We can go round and round and round analyzing all of this for years, for centuries. Or, we could get serious.

The person who is dangerously overweight may wish to analyze what deep philosophical factors brought them to this point, and perhaps that could have value for some. But in the end, if they are serious, they're going to have to eat less, exercise more, or both.

Epiphanies are real. Of course there are also ‘false epiphanies’. And simply because one has an epiphany, doesn’t mean enlightenment. — Wayfarer

Whatever epiphanies and enlightenment may be, I'm not claiming they are not real, as I'd have no way to know that. It seems reasonable that in this field, as in any other, there will be rare people out at the end of the talent bell curve who accomplish things not available to most of us. Mozart in music, Einstein in physics etc.

It may even be possible that such experiences, whatever they may be, are widely available in the appropriate situations. Again, I don't know, and am not arguing against the possibility.

What I'm questioning is whether all this philosophical fancy talk, sophisticated concepts, complex understanding, ie. all the stuff that philosophers love, is an ideal way to approach such topics. It smells like exertion in the wrong direction here.

As I've likely said too many times already, it seems to boil down to whether the problems we are addressing arise primarily from the content of thought, or the medium of thought.

To the degree the problems arise from bad philosophy, incorrect understandings etc, then philosophical fancy talk may prove useful.

My own inclination is that the primary source of such problems is the medium of thought itself. As evidence I would point to the universal nature of human suffering. To the degree this is true, then piling on more and more and more philosophical fancy talk may be like the alcoholic trying to cure his addiction with a case of scotch.

As example, imagine for a moment that it was somehow proven beyond any doubt that philosophy is a step backward in addressing these issues? What would be our response? If we were to choose to continue to do philosophy anyway, that would suggest it is the methodology of philosophy which is our priority and not the topic itself. There's no crime in that, but to the degree that were true, we shouldn't expect to make much meaningful progress on investigating the topic, as we're not really that interested in it.

I often say the whole point of philosophy is learning to look at your spectacles, instead of, or as well as, only looking through them. — Wayfarer

Yes, yes, yes and yes.

Most philosophy takes place on the level of the content of thought, this idea vs. that idea. While there's a place for this, it seems a more powerful form of analysis to examine the nature of thought, that which all ideas are made of.

While we can learn something about say, Christianity, by comparing it to Marxism, Buddhism or some other ideology.... We can learn about EVERY philosophy by shifting our focus to the nature of thought, it's properties, how it works etc.

As example, we could observe how Christianity, a religion supposedly about bringing people together in peace, has subdivided in to hundreds of competing factions, sometimes with murderous results. If we stay on the level of the content of thought we might conclude that this problem arises from some flaw in Christian ideology.

But if we back up a bit and take a wider view we can see that every ideology ever invented inevitably subdivides in to competing internal factions. From this observation we can see that the process of division arises from a deeper level than the content of particular ideologies, but rather from the medium of thought which all ideologies are made of. This insight has profound practical implications...

Imagine I propose that Hippyheadism is the one true way which can unite humanity and bring peace etc. If we understand that Hippyheadism is made of thought, and thought is the source of division, we will know this claim can't be true. If we understand the divisive nature of thought itself, we will know right at the start that it will only be a matter of time before there are Leftist Hippyheadists and Rightist Hippyheadists who will begin yelling at each other.

The content of thought is just a symptom, a product of the nature of thought. So, as Wayfarer suggests, a most productive way of proceeding is to examine one's spectacles.

To illustrate, imagine that you have been wearing tinted sunglasses since birth (you were a really cool jazz musician baby). :-) If you didn't understand the tinted nature of your glasses you would understandably conclude that all of reality is tint colored.

This is the human condition. We don't grasp the divisive nature of our spectacles (thought) and so see division everywhere we look, and take it for granted that the division we perceive is real.

It's unfortunate there is no one on the forum who has had the Zen epiphany — jgill

My take would be that perhaps we should forget about Zen epiphanies, sudden enlightenment, radical transformation and other such grandness.

I'm reminded of those who dream of going to Hollywood and becoming a big star so they'll be popular, when a more serious project might be to make a few new friends. Ok, so a tiny number of people do become big Hollywood stars, that does happen. What relevance does that have for the vast majority of us? Such conversations seems more amateur hour than advanced here.

It's unclear to me whether it's appropriate and useful to rip all the fancy talk becoming trips to shreds, or wiser to leave folks in peace to chase their own dreams. Well, ok, so I know the answer to that, but my own "it's the ill who tend to show up at the hospital" situation is still clinging to the ripping to shreds stuff a bit. Ok, ok, more than a bit. :-)

Totally on the side of the protestors but having trouble figuring out what they want to achieve. — Wayfarer

Same here. I see no chance of tiny little Hong Kong being able to stand up to the largest dictatorship in world history. If Hong Kongers want to be free, it's time to bail and find a way out of there.

Rumi says shut the fuck up. — Mongrel

Makes for bad forum conversations, though. — Wayfarer

Well, not necessarily. If it's true that we should shut the fuck up, we could have practical discussions regarding effective methods of shutting up.

The point of any real spiritual teaching is simply to allow you to forget about your own self-importance and just learn to be (a) happy and (b) useful. In order to do that, you have to cut through a lot of social conditioning and various kinds of other crap that has encumbered you from childhood onwards. — Wayfarer

To me, such statements always raise the question of whether the problem which we are addressing arises primarily from thought content, or from the medium of thought itself. One argument for the later theory is that human psychological suffering would seem to be universally present in every time and place, irregardless of the culture and philosophies of that time and place.

The exclamation 'what are you saying?' is to remind Mu-nan of the importance of the fundamental tenet of Zen, which is 'direct pointing' and not reliant on words and letters (notwithstanding the voluminous literature which Zen has produced!) — Wayfarer

Ah yes, the voluminous literature about nothingness. Sounds very familiar. :-)

I've come to summarize this phenomena, which I very much experience myself, with the quip "it's typically the sick who show up at the hospital".

If an articulate thought-a-holic thinks enough to uncover the limitations of that medium they may go looking for a solution. Upon finding what to them seems a solution (nature in my case) they may then have an incurable urge to think and write a big pile of words about what they've discovered. It's a bit like the alcoholic who tries to cure themselves of their addiction with a case of scotch. After all, drinking is what they know, it's what they're good at, it's what comes naturally to them.

Religions and related philosophies are very often led by such folks who both had a problem that required a solution, and who are articulate and/or charismatic enough to engage many others in that conversation. A marriage of illness and talent, if you will.

The field of psychology seems pretty similar. Some of the troubled among us can't relate to religion and so go looking for a solution to their problems in the field of science. They study psychology in college, and perhaps get degrees, and then become counselors. I know someone like that, hysterical from birth, incapable of a normal social life, but they have a masters in counseling, so now they play the role of expert to others. The crazy counselor, it's almost a cliche.

Whether through religion or science, there's a ton of the blind leading the blind going on, the patients imagining themselves to be the doctors.

To receive more sage wisdom, please read my 400,000 word article on the importance of silence!

I deleted my comment because I said some time back I would stop commenting on Trump. Counting the days...... — Wayfarer

Well, he may be aiming for a come back in 2024, so, sorry to say, might be a lot of counting ahead of us.

It's quite sad that being "big" in the way Trump is (defrauding supporters, bullying politicians, attracting media attention) is something you find admirable and desirable and makes you feel like a "little" person. — Baden

As usual, every thing I'm saying is going right over your oh so clever little heads, and we've proven I'm not going to be able to fix that.

Can you read? I said nothing about Trump being admirable or desirable. What I did say is that his methods have been quite successful, and success on that scale is not usually not a product of stupidity. I did specifically say I share your distaste for this asshole.

[Deleted comment] — Wayfarer

It works.

Here's an example. I drive on the same road every day. At least 90% of the time other drivers tailgate me, risking their lives, in exchange for no conceivable benefit. What I like about this example is that it includes a randomized sample of the entire population, rich, poor, educated, uneducated, Dems, Repubs etc. People are stupid.

Another example which is also pretty all inclusive. You might have heard me mention that nuclear weapons could erase modern civilization in literally just a few minutes, and yet we just had a presidential campaign where they were just barely mentioned. Biden, Trump, the media, nobody interested. This forum too, incapable of focusing on it. People are stupid.

Trump is a realist. That is his gift. He's dealing with the world the way it really is. Stupid. The evidence for this is that his strategies are working.

Another example, the Catholic Church. It's quite trendy here and elsewhere to call them stupid too. And yet they are a 2,000 year old institution which forms one of the foundations of Western civilization. You don't reach such heights by being stupid, but by being a realist.

As Baden said, Trump is street smart, and certainly not an intellectual. I can agree with that. But being street smart to a high degree does not equal being stupid.