Life, the Universe, and Everything

[Elgarian Redux]

And yes, talking about people present in the third person is rather gauche, no matter how you see the world or your self.

But how can it be? In your world model, for one so-called individual (driven by conditioning), to consider the actions of another so-called individual (also driven by conditioning) as 'gauche' is meaningless.

[AnotherSpin]

But how can it be? In your world model, for one so-called individual (driven by conditioning), to consider the actions of another so-called individual (also driven by conditioning) as 'gauche' is meaningless.

Please read my previous post again.

[Elgarian Redux]

Please read my previous post again.

Because you asked me to, I did. The difficulty is that many sentences seem self-refuting. For example:

Some people don't realize the difference between their role in the play and who they really are, but I do.

In your model, 'people' don't realise anything. They follow their conditioning. Even if they think they've broken free of it, how can they know they are not deluding themselves? Of course you can assert that you've broken free, but how do you persuade yourself you're not stuck in a self-conditioning loop?

Anyway, good luck with it. I'm off to enjoy the smell of coffee, the feel of a summer breeze, and revel in the sheer quiddity of the things around me.

[AnotherSpin]

Because you asked me to, I did. The difficulty is that many sentences seem self-refuting. For example:

In your model, 'people' don't realise anything. They follow their conditioning. Even if they think they've broken free of it, how can they know they are not deluding themselves? Of course you can assert that you've broken free, but how do you persuade yourself you're not stuck in a self-conditioning loop?

Anyway, good luck with it. I'm off to enjoy the smell of coffee, the feel of a summer breeze, and revel in the sheer quiddity of the things around me.

No problem, you win. Have a good day and a wonderful walk.

[DavidW]

And yes, talking about people present in the third person is rather gauche, no matter how you see the world or your self.

You're right, I shouldn't talk about you in the third person as if you weren't here, it is rude.

[AnotherSpin]

You're right, I shouldn't talk about you in the third person as if you weren't here, it is rude.

Thanks.

[drogulus]

    This is what I'd rant about if I understood it better. Instead I rant about almost it.

[Karl Henning]

But how can it be? In your world model, for one so-called individual (driven by conditioning), to consider the actions of another so-called individual (also driven by conditioning) as 'gauche' is meaningless.

So-called gaucherie.

[Karl Henning]

This is what I'd rant about if I understood it better. Instead I rant about almost it.

Why, Ernie, you almost talk as if understanding were some sort of prerequisite for ranting. C'est si drôle!

[drogulus]

Why, Ernie, you almost talk as if understanding were some sort of prerequisite for ranting. C'est si drôle!

    I'm asymptotic to understanding deep stuff. That's the best I can do. I have to try to understand what I say almost as much as the next guy. People are often mistaken in thinking they understand what understanding is. Hofstadter is trying to shed light on that with his rants on analogy and recursion.

[Karl Henning]

I'm asymptotic to understanding deep stuff. That's the best I can do. I have to try to understand what I say almost as much as the next guy. People are often mistaken in thinking they understand what understanding is. Hofstadter is trying to shed light on that with his rants on analogy and recursion.

I find new things not to understand nearly daily.

[Elgarian Redux]

I find new things not to understand nearly daily.

I find 'em by the hour. [Any takers for 'by the minute'?]

[Elgarian Redux]

I find new things not to understand nearly daily.

We have helped each other to not-understand things for a long time now, Karl, on and off - but things improved, you must admit, when we discovered The Shed. I take all my not-understandings there, now.

[AnotherSpin]

Not understanding this or that is rather like having a hammer and not quite enough nails.

[AnotherSpin]

Cross-posting this from another thread.

I've lost all interest in philosophy.

It's often regarded as a path to deeper understanding or even liberation, but in practice it frequently becomes a refined form of avoidance. Constructing concepts, polishing terminology and engaging in endless discussion may create the illusion of intellectual progress, yet they rarely bring inner clarity or stillness. More often, they sustain mental noise and reinforce the ego of the one who "knows."

When all philosophical knowledge, systems and spiritual frameworks are set aside, what remains is simple, wordless awareness. This absence of conceptual baggage, though unimpressive to the intellect, is far closer to genuine freedom than any theory ever devised. In that light, philosophy is less a doorway and more a distraction. Elegant, intricate, but ultimately a major obstacle to liberation.

Good riddance.

[Elgarian Redux]

When all philosophical knowledge, systems and spiritual frameworks are set aside, what remains is simple, wordless awareness.

I imagine the state of awareness of a caterpillar or a tadpole to be something like that. On a bad day, that might seem desirable, I guess - but it isn't philosophy that makes me think it.

What I don't understand is why you spend so much time talking about philosophy when you dislike it so much. I remember when I first encountered Kant's distinction between the phenomenal world and the noumenal world, and then Schopenhauer's realisation that the noumenon is one, I felt a kind of awe, that it was in fact possible to arrive at such a profound insight merely by thought. But the experience was the very opposite of "'reinforcing the ego of one who 'knows'", as you put it. It was humbling.

Not, I hasten to add, that I consider myself a philosopher. I too would find the purely rational approach to the world far too incomplete and restricting. But that's the word I'd use: not fallacious or mistaken - just incomplete. I've always been attracted by Ruskin's approach to perceiving the world:  'Senses, fancy, feeling, reason, the whole of the beholding spirit, must be stilled in attention or stirred with delight; else the labouring spirit has not done its work well.'

[AnotherSpin]

I imagine the state of awareness of a caterpillar or a tadpole to be something like that. On a bad day, that might seem desirable, I guess - but it isn't philosophy that makes me think it.

What I don't understand is why you spend so much time talking about philosophy when you dislike it so much. I remember when I first encountered Kant's distinction between the phenomenal world and the noumenal world, and then Schopenhauer's realisation that the noumenon is one, I felt a kind of awe, that it was in fact possible to arrive at such a profound insight merely by thought. But the experience was the very opposite of "'reinforcing the ego of one who 'knows'", as you put it. It was humbling.

Not, I hasten to add, that I consider myself a philosopher. I too would find the purely rational approach to the world far too incomplete and restricting. But that's the word I'd use: not fallacious or mistaken - just incomplete. I've always been attracted by Ruskin's approach to perceiving the world:  'Senses, fancy, feeling, reason, the whole of the beholding spirit, must be stilled in attention or stirred with delight; else the labouring spirit has not done its work well.'

What I'm talking about is not philosophy. It may look similar in form, but in essence, it's something else.

[Elgarian Redux]

What I'm talking about is not philosophy. It may look similar in form, but in essence, it's something else.

You misunderstand me. I agree that what you propose is not philosophy. But what I meant was that you still talk about philosophy (albeit scathingly) a good deal. This is what I was responding to:
 

I've lost all interest in philosophy.

It's often regarded as a path to deeper understanding or even liberation, but in practice it frequently becomes a refined form of avoidance. Constructing concepts, polishing terminology and engaging in endless discussion may create the illusion of intellectual progress, yet they rarely bring inner clarity or stillness. More often, they sustain mental noise and reinforce the ego of the one who "knows."

When all philosophical knowledge, systems and spiritual frameworks are set aside, what remains is simple, wordless awareness. ... philosophy is less a doorway and more a distraction. Elegant, intricate, but ultimately a major obstacle to liberation.

That's a lot of talking about philosophy.

[AnotherSpin]

You misunderstand me. I agree that what you propose is not philosophy. But what I meant was that you still talk about philosophy (albeit scathingly) a good deal. This is what I was responding to:
 
That's a lot of talking about philosophy.

I said that I'm no longer interested in philosophy and briefly explained why.

[drogulus]

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