Life, the Universe, and Everything

[Karl Henning]

There is philosophy as the study of it, and then the practice of it which you do whether you study it or not.

Well observed. 

[drogulus]

    This is for "this sentence is false" fans. I know you're out there.

[AnotherSpin]

There is philosophy as the study of it, and then the practice of it which you do whether you study it or not.

Using numbers doesn't make me a mathematician. Putting words into sentences doesn't make me a writer. Knowing who I am doesn't make me a philosopher.

[drogulus]

    You take baby steps until you stop for whatever reason. Philosophers do find questions and propose answers. Ordinary people do that, too. It's a matter of degree and not very much of credentials.

[Elgarian Redux]

Using numbers doesn't make me a mathematician. Putting words into sentences doesn't make me a writer. Knowing who I am doesn't make me a philosopher.

We can all agree that you aren't a philosopher. That was never in doubt. It just seems strange that you keep on wanting to discuss it. That's all I meant. It doesn't matter in the least. Let's drop the subject.

[AnotherSpin]

We can all agree that you aren't a philosopher. That was never in doubt. It just seems strange that you keep on wanting to discuss it. That's all I meant. It doesn't matter in the least. Let's drop the subject.

No, that's not the case. I'm merely responding to questions and comments addressed to me. I haven't initiated anything myself, including this thread, which strangely enough has somehow been attributed to me. I've no desire to keep explaining anything further, especially since I've already said what I wanted to say, and I said it as clearly as possible. I have nothing more to say.

I'll end by sharing a few of Osho's thoughts on philosophy that resonate deeply with me:

Philosophy is a game played with words; it is not concerned with reality, only with concepts.

Philosophy means thinking - and truth is known through no-thinking.

All philosophy is bunk. It has not solved a single problem.

The philosopher is concerned with questions. The mystic is concerned with answers - and the answer is always silence.

[drogulus]

The mystic is concerned with answers - and the answer is always silence.

    Om outta here! 

    We're on the road to nowhere.....

[AnotherSpin]

Om outta here! 

    We're on the road to nowhere.....

I am not on the road to anywhere.

[drogulus]

I am not on the road to anywhere.

     I don't blame you. There's nothing there of interest.

[Henk]

No, that's not the case. I'm merely responding to questions and comments addressed to me. I haven't initiated anything myself, including this thread, which strangely enough has somehow been attributed to me. I've no desire to keep explaining anything further, especially since I've already said what I wanted to say, and I said it as clearly as possible. I have nothing more to say.

I'll end by sharing a few of Osho's thoughts on philosophy that resonate deeply with me:

Philosophy is a game played with words; it is not concerned with reality, only with concepts.

Philosophy means thinking - and truth is known through no-thinking.

All philosophy is bunk. It has not solved a single problem.

The philosopher is concerned with questions. The mystic is concerned with answers - and the answer is always silence.

The line separating philosophy from mysticism cannot so easily be drawn.

There are strands in philosophy of mysticism, like in the beginning in philosophy and with the advent of Christianity. Today there are still mystical interpretations of philosophy among others of Deleuze. Nietzsche also has mystical elements and his work TSZ is very mystical.

https://www.amazon.nl/Hermetic-Deleuze-Philosophy-Spiritual-Ordeal/dp/082235229X/ref=sr_1_1?__mk_nl_NL=%C3%85M%C3%85%C5%BD%C3%95%C3%91&crid=2DBCJDU5UIMBE&dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.m4SJikBZsbEA74uXZYGc9FT7cubbrKuFB2OXjKSDIL9ntvOATE0a4Lky2YmiYKrqgWZCpP70Zuk2Kg7EcBOqBzVpgPPu0Drq3xXC-p2zHLDxUejDW1Rub0441-ofV0i44g61YCbeU7aPeF4pNPNGAxNbL9pLMnw88IkmkE1JIVDsFVcFz-kK9gz10YYyX-IU4hjik8Cpc2ZkVhP7azB3ne2Ziqo9guLgZOKqPToIkeg.duVVu3L4qcm05REN3GrQCcoCKqR6ACWvUqo-jeNQLSo&dib_tag=se&keywords=deleuze+spiritual&qid=1753125871&sprefix=deleuze+spiritual%2Caps%2C95&sr=8-1

'The Hermetic Deleuze: Philosophy and Spiritual Ordeal Paperback – 20 augustus 2012
Engelstalige uitgave Joshua Ramey (auteur)

In his writing, Gilles Deleuze drew on a vast array of source material, from philosophy and psychoanalysis to science and art. Yet scholars have largely neglected one of the intellectual currents underlying his work: Western esotericism, specifically the lineage of hermetic thought that extends from Late Antiquity into the Renaissance through the work of figures such as Iamblichus, Nicholas of Cusa, Pico della Mirandola, and Giordano Bruno. In this book, Joshua Ramey examines the extent to which Deleuze's ethics, metaphysics, and politics were informed by, and can only be fully understood through, this hermetic tradition.

Identifying key hermetic moments in Deleuze's thought, including his theories of art, subjectivity, and immanence, Ramey argues that the philosopher's work represents a kind of contemporary hermeticism, a consistent experiment in unifying thought and affect, percept and concept, and mind and nature in order to engender new relations between knowledge, power, and desire. By uncovering and clarifying the hermetic strand in Deleuze's work, Ramey offers both a new interpretation of Deleuze, particularly his insistence that the development of thought demands a spiritual ordeal, and a framework for retrieving the pre-Kantian paradigm of philosophy as spiritual practice.'

[Henk]

Please consider the book @AnotherSpin, you seem a hermetic to me, you might benefit from Deleuze, he's not that bad I hope you will discover. 🤛

[Henk]

@AnotherSpin Another Spin echoes 'difference and repetition' (Deleuze's main work), you are predestined to become a Deleuzian, Sergii. 🤛

[AnotherSpin]

@AnotherSpin Another Spin echoes 'difference and repetition' (Deleuze's main work), you are predestined to become a Deleuzian, Sergii. 🤛

Thank you for recommending it. I tried reading Deleuze a few years ago, but it didn't work out. I just couldn't make myself do it, to be honest. Maybe I'll try again.

As for your observation that it's sometimes hard to draw a line between philosophy and mysticism, well, yes, there are some interesting characters among philosophers too. Rarely, but still, why not? No one is immune to the urge for freedom, not even the most hardened "thinkers". On the other hand, not all mystics are free either.

[Henk]

Thank you for recommending it. I tried reading Deleuze a few years ago, but it didn't work out. I just couldn't make myself do it, to be honest. Maybe I'll try again.

As for your observation that it's sometimes hard to draw a line between philosophy and mysticism, well, yes, there are some interesting characters among philosophers too. Rarely, but still, why not? No one is immune to the urge for freedom, not even the most hardened "thinkers". On the other hand, not all mystics are free either.

I tried Osho. He has some valuable points, some work, but he's too ascetic to me, unfree,

Thank you for recommending it. I tried reading Deleuze a few years ago, but it didn't work out. I just couldn't make myself do it, to be honest. Maybe I'll try again.

As for your observation that it's sometimes hard to draw a line between philosophy and mysticism, well, yes, there are some interesting characters among philosophers too. Rarely, but still, why not? No one is immune to the urge for freedom, not even the most hardened "thinkers". On the other hand, not all mystics are free either.

Deleuze is difficult. Slow reading, repeat the passages as you read, trying to understand, taking in bits, laying the book away for a while, reread the book. But it is fullfilling.

Maybe you also need a introduction into Deleuze or try Ramey's book.

[AnotherSpin]

I tried Osho. He has some valuable points, some work, but he's too ascetic to me, unfree,
[...]

I've always felt that Osho was one of the more easily digestible Indian gurus (for lack of a better word). A rather flamboyant character. There's an enormous number of books he left behind, transcriptions of his talks, and most of them read like light fiction, complete with amusing anecdotes/jokes and so on. Yes, as far as I know, all his books are available for free.

He was a complicated and paradoxical figure, someone who praised Hitler and laughed at Gandhi, just to give an idea. I visited his ashram in Pune, near Mumbai. A very interesting place, quite unlike your typical Indian ashram.

I was never a follower of Osho, and for a long time I found him rather off-putting. My view has softened over the years; things tend to settle with time. In the end, all gurus are saying roughly the same thing. Who actually helps is a matter of pure chance.

[Florestan]

He was a complicated and paradoxical figure, someone who praised Hitler and laughed at Gandhi

That's besides his followers perpetrating the first and largest bioterrorist attack in US history.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1984_Rajneeshee_bioterror_attack

The Rajneeshees committed the most significant crimes of their kind in the history of the United States ... The largest single incident of fraudulent marriages, the most massive scheme of wiretapping and bugging, and the largest mass poisoning.

[AnotherSpin]

I tried Osho. He has some valuable points, some work, but he's too ascetic to me, unfree,
Deleuze is difficult. Slow reading, repeat the passages as you read, trying to understand, taking in bits, laying the book away for a while, reread the book. But it is fullfilling.

Maybe you also need a introduction into Deleuze or try Ramey's book.

By the way, if you're interested, I can recommend some books by Osho that I found intriguing, or books by other Indian gurus. Just send me a pm.