Francis, a quick tip. If you highlight text in a person's post a little quote button will appear. When you click that button their text will be automatically quoted in your reply box.

You should at least try to show where I demonstrate a lack of understanding — praxis

Patiently awaiting receipt of your payment. Take your time. Or ignore, as you wish.

We don't know with any kind of certainty that the logical outcome is eventual chaos. — ChatteringMonkey

Yes, there is no certainty, agreed. I'm just speculating on the outcome of an ever widening gap between the power available to us and our ability to successfully manage that power.

Even if that would be the eventual outcome of "the process of knowledge accumulation", knowledge is not a singular thing. Some types may be dangerous, some not so much etc... — ChatteringMonkey

Agreed again. I'm agreeable that most of the knowledge will be useful and constructive. The problem is that the negative powers grow in scale, steadily erasing room for error. As example, since the end of WWII a huge amount of positive progress has been made, too much to begin to list. But it only takes one bad day to erase it all, due to the scale of nuclear weapons.

And even if we were to assume that such a general conclusion can be meaningful, it doesn't follow that this should be the only perspective a human being living here and now should take. — ChatteringMonkey

If one is ignorant of such calculations then one could enjoy a type of "ignorance is bliss" experience. If one dies before the you know what hits the fan, again a happy outcome. In my case, I'm not ignorant, but I am 68, so I'll probably get lucky and miss the chaos if it comes. What I'm ignorant of is the pointlessness of worrying about things which are probably inevitable and beyond anyone's control. :-)

That said, I find this interesting largely because it may illustrate how the group consensus, even that of the very brightest and most highly educated people, could be horribly wrong.

I believe what you are describing is called "the technological singularity". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_singularity — Philosophim

From that page:

The technological singularity—also, simply, the singularity[1]—is a hypothetical point in time at which technological growth becomes uncontrollable and irreversible, resulting in unforeseeable changes to human civilization

On my side, I was/am interested in getting continuously enough scientific knowledge (thru my experiments and analyses after graduation) to just gain my daily bread — KerimF

I hear ya. To be clear, I have no interest in demonizing scientists. We hire them to develop knowledge, and they do a good job of performing the service we asked them to perform.

If only you could be so frugal with what bounces around in your head. But please, you were going to show there I demonstrate a lack of understanding. — praxis

Will assist with this to the degree desired, after you pay the bill.

If you choose not to pay the bill, ok, no problem. I'm not going to chase you around and yell at you etc. But I probably will finally take the advice to ignore you. Maybe that matters, maybe not, no idea really, up to you.

So show where I demonstrate a lack understanding. — praxis

Ok, but first, pay the bill.

1) Start a thread where you share your insights on any topic of your choice without making any reference whatsoever to anything anybody else has said.

2) Either find something in any religion which you can personally put to constructive use and explore that, or let the subject of religion go and move on to some other arena where you can find something of constructive use. That is, be rational. This is only a request that you be loyal to your own chosen methodology, nothing more.

When you can show that 1) you're not a chronic troll, and that 2) you do have a perspective which you believe in enough to act on yourself, I predict your ratings will rise.

Cute caricature that shows how your mind works. The crazy thing is that the only thing I’d doing in this topic is committing the cardinal sin of arguing that Buddhism is a religion — praxis

Wow! Two entire sentences! You must be exhausted. Do you want to lay down?

Buddhism is a religion! OMG! Who knew??? Fascinating!!!

Claiming that I don’t understand the issues rather than addressing my points — praxis

Except that you don't understand the issues, so it's not an insult, but rather a factual statement.

There is no such thing as unconditional love. It does not exist — Konkai

It's interesting that you've met every person in the world and documented all of their experiences. That must have been quite time consuming!

I see no attempt by you to understand the issues. — FrancisRay

Me either.

I cannot see the point of your approach — FrancisRay

Me either. Well, other than the emotional buzz of the gotcha dance, I get that part.

clearly it prevents you from learning anything — FrancisRay

Seems reasonable, but unproven.

That is the core of the topic, after all — praxis

It's the core of the thread title, eight pages ago. Elegant arguments from highly informed members revealing the limitations of the title have since been presented at great length.

Whinny ad hominem attacks — praxis

Don't see any.

In a word, to gotcha! — praxis

Made me laugh! Owning it, a beautiful thing in any writer. I tried to do the same above, but now I'm kinda embarrassed after seeing the elegant conciseness of your admission.

In a word. Why couldn't I learn that??? Dang....

Wayfarer is "The Man" when it comes to subjects like this. Not that I'm qualified to judge, but his knowledge on such subjects seem exhaustive.

What criteria could exclude the act of wanting from everything else? — TheMadFool

We use virtual reality to become armadillos? Seriously, I don't see a human based solution to excluding the act of wanting. Maybe some theorize they can, but even if so, way too rare to be relevant.

Dunno. Maybe I don't get your point and am not being helpful.

Well, yes, that's perhaps a Buddhist kind of conundrum.

I'm think of something more like this. When I was young I was friends with some very rich people who lived nearby. Nice folks, but there was a sadness there.

What happens when you can have anything you want, and you get it, and you're still not happy? What then?

Most of us can think, when I get XYZ I'll be happy. And then we can spend years chasing XYZ. What if we're handed XYZ immediately, and it doesn't work?

That's what might be coming as virtual reality takes over. I finally get to date Diane Lane all day everyday, dream come true, except that it doesn't change much. Now what?

I'm very curious about what factors lead to how a person thinks — Aristotle21

The electro-chemical information medium all ideas are made of. All thoughts, philosophies, ideas, opinions etc inherit the properties of the medium they are all made of.

That's the primary factor of influence. The rest are little details.

Why doesn't everyone that has the least criticism of society go and live somewhere else? — unenlightened

There are only something like 36,000 people in the Yukon, a geographic area larger than California.

As a lifelong Florida hermit kinda guy, I figure I'll just slip on my flipflops and a little sunscreen and head on up there!

This is just like 100% wrong. — frank

Lot of that going around. Do they have a vaccine for it??

I think you should write to Reagan and tell him this arms race has to stop! — frank

Hey, he got closer than anyone. But blew it in the end.

Well, I thought Biden handled last night's debate pretty well. No big fumbles anyway, so barring an alien invasion, it's on to the victory party, I desperately hope.

But I did something evil last night. Like everyone else, I've been getting a ton of political calls and texts. Somebody had texted me about 100 times to ask me if I would be voting Dem. Fed up, I finally texted back and said...

"Yes, I'll be voting Dem. Unless you keep calling."

Upon which they immediately texted me back.

So I replied, "Will now not vote for the particular Dem you are working for."

But, that's a scam, fake news, as I'd already voted. Shhh, don't tell!

The phone went quiet for about 20 minutes.

Then they texted me YET AGAIN to apologize and plead for me to reconsider, more propaganda etc.

Sigh....

So I've launched a new campaign! Vote Hippiehead for Secretary Of Impatient Assholeness!!! Please add your number to this thread so I can text you 4,000 times.

When Lao Tsu is asked how he knows the truth about origins and creation he replies, 'I look inside myself and see'. He says nothing about looking 'out there' in the world — FrancisRay

Ok, well, was Lao Tsu an urban dweller, or did he live in the country?

I do hear what you're saying. The experience I'm reporting does happen within, that's true.

I'm just reporting how that experience feels to me, anecdotal report, that's all. If I were to jump in the lake, I'd get all wet. When I jump in to the woods, should I stay long enough, I get all "truth". That is, whatever it is we're attempting to point to, it feels to me as if it's embedded in the material world. This proves nothing, except that I like it. :-)

If the source of 'binary distinctions (the categories of thought) is thought itself, the very nature of thought, then thought is the source of distinctions and divisions in the world. This is mysticism. The idea is that Reality is undivided and free of all distinctions but thought chops it up into subjects and objects, here and there, this and that. — FrancisRay

Ah, yes, exactly what I meant as well. Just a language hiccup, thanks for clarifying.

This chopping-up or symmetry-breaking would create the words of life and death. Buddhism would be a way to re-unify life and death by revealing the underlying state common to both. — FrancisRay

I like this a lot. If you wish, please expand on the "underlying state common to both". I've expressed similar ideas in my own more clumsy language, but the underlying state notion is new. Tell me more.

I think you're proving that all that is required for Buddhist philosophy is clear thinking, or enlightened common sense. — FrancisRay

Ok, and for those allergic to anything that smells like it might be a religion, we might also just call it clear thinking. Though, that said, I'm not sure clear thinking alone is sufficient. But anyway...

He is saying the metaphysics does not endorse a positive result, which is a fact well-known to most philosophers. It is just that most cannot make sense of this fact. Mysticism allows us to make sense of it and thus understand philosophy. — FrancisRay

If you wish, I would welcome a further expansion of this too. How does mysticism allow us to make sense of metaphysics? I suppose it might help if I knew what metaphysics is :-) always forgetting that.

As is probably clear by now, I'm not a philosopher in the sense of being well read etc. You know, my source material is pine trees, palmetto bushes, armadillos, dirt etc. :-) I have little knowledge of who said what about who what and when and so on.

"The Truth" lies just beyond the symbolic realm. It's right there in front of our face at all times. — FrancisRay

On what grounds do you make this claim? — FrancisRay

Fair question. Hmm....

In part, it's just a language issue, as I tend to use the words "real" and "truth" to refer to that which symbols point to. Not very important, I wouldn't argue with other word choices.

This language use seems to arise from my experience of spending tons of time in the North Florida woods. I've developed this sense that what we're really looking for is embedded in the material world. Some people might call this God? Not being religious myself I guess I chose the word truth.

Truth is usually thought of a some collection of symbols which point accurately to the material world. I'm ok with that, but to me, it feels more like truth is the real world, and symbols merely point to the truth. Some symbols are more accurate than others, but to me, they're still all just symbols, and not "truth".

Dunno if I've explained that well, even to myself.

This is what Nagarjuna proves — FrancisRay

Ok, cool, so we aren't really debating, just using different language and methods to head in the same general direction.

If the source of binary thinking is thought itself (and not the binary world 'out there') then the source of the world 'out there' is thought. . — FrancisRay

Hmm.... Don't quite get this. Would you like to expand on this a bit? Do you mean, like, the moon is made of thought? Probably not. Obviously, I don't get it.

Yes. It is not possible to think without using the categories of thought, which are binary. You're making many good Buddhist arguments — FrancisRay

Except that I didn't know they were Buddhist arguments until, um, yesterday. :-) It seems that somehow I've absorbed at least some of Buddhism from, somewhere, without being educated enough to identify the original source. Or maybe I've just come to a similar place by my own methods. No idea really.

Yes. Hence Buddhism is rather more than just calming the mind. — FrancisRay

Yes, I understand. I'm not attempting to redefine Buddhism, but perhaps, um, offering related alternatives?

The point was not to critique anyone’s habits but to point out that if the religious were actually motivated by what they claim to be motivated by, some form of salvation, then they would behave accordingly — praxis

And if you were actually motivated by what you claim to be motivated by, reason, you would surgically identify whatever aspects of religion (which you are clearly very interested in) you can make constructive use of, and then throw the rest in the trash bin. It's entirely possible to do this without in anyway whatsoever becoming religious.

Every day you go to thread after thread on forum after forum to toss all the things you don't like about religion in the dumpster, which is rational. But then you jump in the dumpster and endlessly roll around in all the discarded trash which you have already identified as being of no use to you, which is NOT rational.

If it should be true that there is absolutely nothing about religion which you can make constructive use of, ok, fair enough. Lots of people feel that way. I have no complaint, to each their own. Should this be the case, then what is rational about spending every day for years in religion threads???

The thing is praxis, you want to lecture everyone about reason, but you don't actually believe in it yourself. That's why everyone finds you so tiresome. You're a heretic. To your own position.

Here's what reason looks like. Shit or get off the pot. Find something in religion you can make constructive use of and focus on that, or let religion go, and redirect your time and intelligence at more promising targets.

And, if I actually believed in reason, I would be taking all the good advice I've been getting to walk away from you and leave you to your fate. But, I'm as nutzo as you are, so no worries, it's safe, the circus merry-go-round can go on, endlessly round and round and round, to nowhere.

For a practitioner discursive philosophy is not important, but for anyone else it is the only way to work out where the truth lies — FrancisRay

"The Truth" lies just beyond the symbolic realm. It's right there in front of our face at all times.

So thought is important and unimportant, necessary and unnecessary. Lau Tsu tells us 'True words seem paradoxical' and this is what Nagarjuna proves in logic.We-are and are-not, says Heraclitus, and this dual-aspect view is what we need to understand for a grasp of what Buddhism is about. We have to go beyond the binary yes-no, on-off kind of thinking that causes Western metaphysics to be useless, and it's not an easy trick to learn. — FrancisRay

I agree with all of this!

Imho, the source of the binary thinking is thought itself, how it operates. The evidence for this is that everything the mind touches gets chopped up in to opposing binary pieces. If true, we can escape binary thinking simply by not thinking. Or more realistically most of the time, by lowering the volume of the thought machine.

I agree that lowering the volume of thought is not necessarily simple pimple instant easy, especially at first, but then it need not be very complicated either. A high school kid can teach simple mechanical exercises for calming the mind.

A possible problem with all of the above is that it's a temporary solution, not a permanent solution, much in the same way that eating lunch does not end hunger forever.

And because it's not a permanent solution, it's not glamorous, which turns out to be a really lame marketing strategy. :-) And the thing is, we often don't want simple solutions, but instead a glorious mountain to climb. Well, ok then, everyone is free to climb if that is the path they prefer. Not complaining, just attempting however ineptly to explore alternatives.

If you want to take this 'no-thought' route then Zen practice would be just the ticket. But this profoundly simple practice is justified in philosophy by Nagarjuna's not-so-simple logic. — FrancisRay

Ok, I bow to your expertise on Nagarjuna, of whom I still know basically nothing. Just wish to add that there is another simpler way to justify a "no-thought route", one's experience.

I'm really not trying to argue with anyone's philosophy so much as I'm seeking the most efficient route the bottom line. One could spend years studying "no thought" philosophy and then come to it that way. Or, one could simply try "no thought", see what happens, draw one's own conclusions, and proceed from there.

Again, whatever works and to each their own is agreeable to me. But, this is a philosophy forum so if one person says "tomato" the next person is likely going to say "tomawto", as that is the dance we do here.

To a Buddhist your paragraph is a muddle of misconceptions. What you call the real world would be unreal. What makes you say it is real? Realism causes nothing but paradoxes and contradictions in metaphysics, which suggest it is false. — FrancisRay

Sorry, more sloppy writing on my part. I wasn't using the term "real world" as precisely as you are. I was just trying to make a common sense distinction between, say, the pencil on my desk, and the symbol "pencil" in my mind. I should likely try to upgrade my lingo as you are not the first person I've confused with it.

I realise you want to throw philosophy away, but God gave us a brain and we may as well use it. — FrancisRay

Not exactly, as documented by my 40 billion posts on the forum. :-) Instead, allow me to remind you of what we seem to have already agreed upon, using philosophy to explore it's limits.

Not to take this antidote is to risk believeing all sorts of nonsense. — FrancisRay

To play the role of quibble monster, :-) to the degree I "throw philosophy away" I run no such risk, as the nonsense philosophy will go in the trash can with all the rest. To the degree I attempt to find the "correct philosophy" then I will inevitably be generating conflict with those who find a different "one true way" than I do.

As example, consider Christianity (I don't know Buddhist history and so can't use that as example). Christianity is a very well intended philosophy about bringing people together in peace. And what happened? It broke up in to a thousand sects which then came in to conflict with each other, sometimes with murderous results. If I were to propose some new flavor of Christianity which supposedly would fix this, I would thereby be joining and adding to the ongoing conflict.

My point here, as usual, is that the electro-chemical information medium that ALL philosophies are made of operates by a process of division, thus ANYTHING made of thought generates more division. That is, all philosophies inherent the properties of the medium which they are all made of.

To the degree one accepts such a perspective, it puts philosophy as a whole in a new light. This is fascinating to me, but again, need not be to anyone else.

I suspect your low view of philosophy — FrancisRay

Again, please observe me generating large volumes of philosophy. And please recall our earlier agreement regarding using thought to explore it's limits.

Simply put, we need to learn how to think skillfully. — TLCD1996

Ok, I can obviously endorse this suggestion. In that spirit, we might start by attempting to approach this advice in the simplest most straightforward manner possible.

I recently purchased a chain saw. The very first step in understanding how to "saw skillfully" is to learn how to operate the on/off button. Should a philosopher consider the mind to be another mechanical device of the human body, the very first step in understanding how to think skillfully might be to learn how to operate the on/off button.

What if what the philosophical mind in all it's infinite complexity is reaching for is most efficiently found simply by turning the mind machine off?

Or, to chant this in Hippiehead dogma, what if the problem we are trying to address arises not from thought content, but from the medium of thought?

When I was a teen my Dad and I would often retire to the family room after dinner to engage in debates that could go on long in to the night. As can often happen in philosophy land, sometimes the debates would get overheated and we'd wind up yelling etc. (Remember, it's the sixties, everybody is yelling about everything all the time)

What was cool about this nonsense was that no matter how overheated our debates got, they never made a dent in the bond of love between us. In fact, it brought my Dad and I closer together to realize that no matter the circumstances, nothing could break that bond.

And so, being both brilliant and clueless, I've spent the last 25 years unconsciously trying to recreate those early bonding experiences with, um, anonymous strangers on the Internutz. You can imagine how that's gone over.

Like I said. Articulate, rational, clueless.

My parents (neither college educated) taught me "philosophy" in this manner. I was a teen during the sixties when MANY contentious social issues were on the table. So I'd come home from school with some new idea which I would present in the usual "I'm 17 so I know everything" manner. Whatever opinion I expressed my parents would always jump to the other side of the issue.

I eventually caught on and joined the game. Whatever anybody school said I'd jump to the other side of the question.

I painfully remember when the Kent State students were murdered by the national guard. The next day my girlfriend at the time ran up to me almost in tears saying something like, "Isn't it horrible?!!!" Being the totally clueless genius nerd that I am I immediately began an exposition on why public disorder can not be tolerated, or something like that. You can imagine how that went over.... :-(

To me, that little incident kind of sums up we, um, philosophy giants. Articulate, rational, clueless.

But not you dear reader, of course I'm talking about those other people over there.

Or you'd be a complete mess. — Coben

How did you find out? Who told!!?? :-)

Complete non sequitur. — praxis

Entrance fee to being taken seriously. Or not.

Other than that, I endorse everything TLCD1996 has said above (with the caveat that his username sounds like a bus license plate :-) ). — Wayfarer

Listen up punks! Now THAT is how to give someone a good debunking!

But now I'm terrified of what he's going to say about my screen name.... :-)

The perfection is not "out there", that's the thing. Even though we get our ideals and guidance from "out there", it's all "in here". — TLCD1996

I agree and spoke imprecisely. Was trying to say that I'm a human being, and so there is no perfection in here. The evidence suggests that this will always be the case, so the rational course would seem to be to make peace with "what is", as the saying goes. Not complacency exactly, but not chasing an illusion either. One way to look at it, not a "one true way".

You say there's pros and cons, the Buddha says yes: and therefore it's unsatisfactory, and one ought to abandon that for something more refined, to the point where "happiness" and "suffering" are both transcended — TLCD1996

Ok, yes, observation of reality is neither happiness or suffering because those are made of thought, and the clearest observation requires setting thought aside, or at least turning down the volume. Observation might be described as peace, but at it's best it's not that either, but rather nothing. A state of mind which happens to match the vast majority of reality pretty well, thus adding to it's credibility, imho.

Transcended in the moment, yes, possible. Transcended permanently? Not possible for me, but maybe for you. I do wish to avoid making sweeping dogmatic assertions about millions of people I've never met.

Having faulty thought content can cause suffering by putting us into conflict with the world or even ourselves. — TLCD1996

Yes, of course, agreed.

But thoughts are not easy to tame — TLCD1996

Agreed again. When I'm anywhere near a computer (work of Satan!! :-) ) impossible. However, when I'm in the woods, the volume of thought tends to lower naturally and largely without effort. The "secret" ingredient is time. Just time. It's perhaps from this experience that I'm questioning the necessity of philosophy, insights, transformation etc.

There is so much more of interest in your post, but we're reaching the end of the day here and my focus is fading away. Look forward to more soon!

You claimed that a practitioner would know what Buddhism (a religion) is. My point was that religious followers are notoriously often mislead. — praxis

Homework: Start a new thread on any subject where you share your own insights, without any reference whatsoever to what anybody else has said. If you find that you can't do so, start a thread about that.

Your comment relates to the commonplace dogmatic kind of monotheism but is not relevant where a religion is the search for truth. — FrancisRay

And if a perspective should consider "the truth" to be the real world, and not any collection of ideas pointing to it, then concerns about dogmatism, contradiction etc are resolved. Instead of an endlessly unproductive debate about who has the correct philosophy, another option is to just toss all the philosophies overboard.

Put another way, what if the psychic nutrition we seek can be found in the experience of observation itself, and is thus not dependent upon any insights which may or may not arise as a result of that experience? — FrancisRay

I'm not sure I understand this question. — FrancisRay

Because I'm not putting it well. That happens a lot. Your patience is appreciated.

Certainly the question 'Who is observing?' would be vital since it comes down to 'Who am I?'. — FrancisRay

What if questions and insights and philosophies etc are largely unnecessary?

We eat an apple. We receive the nutrition. We don't really need to know much of anything about apples or digestion.

We observe. Our minds receive a rest. We don't really need to know much about how or why.

PREMISE: If the problem we are trying to address arises primarily from the nature of thought itself....

THEORY: Then it's essentially a mechanical issue which doesn't really require much insight.

UNNECESSARY FANCY PHILOSOPHY: :-)

It's my sense that what we're looking for is embedded in the real world. What's typically preventing us from accessing this asset is that we are distracted by the symbolic world inside our heads. It's not complicated, we're just not paying much attention to the real world, that's all. Typically we are instead paying attention to our thoughts about the real world, which is something else entirely.

Any method of observation which succeeds in shifting our attention from the symbolic world to the real world would seem to be sufficient. As you know, there are countless simple mechanical exercises which can lead one in this direction.

Not sure if this helps, or just makes things worse. :-) In any case, I'm obsessed with such notions, but nobody else need be. Whatever works seems a rational principle.

Yes. yes, yes. Spot on! You say you know little of Buddhism and yet you say nothing but sensible things about it. — FrancisRay

Apparently I'm one of the great Buddhist sages and didn't even know it. Would someone please tell the hippy chicks? :-)

Mysticism asks us to investigate who is doing the looking. Basically the idea is to discover that we are not body or mind. — FrancisRay

Best I can tell, that seems a reasonable description of mysticism. But not quite what I was referring to so much. Maybe I can improve the question...

Sri Baba Hippyhead asked, "What if we were to instead embrace observation for itself?"

---------
Put another way, what if the psychic nutrition we seek can be found in the experience of observation itself, and is thus not dependent upon any insights which may or may not arise as a result of that experience?
---------

Having just today learned of Nagarjuna today for the first time, I of course can not relate this question to his teachings. But maybe you can?