Pseudo-Philosophy and Mysticism

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

If you were right, what you see is what you get, nothing more, nothing less. What should they strive for? The bird? Its withing the grasp, a bow and arrow fixes that. It will not build tomorrow, nor a future. The law makes justice, not man. Man exists, the law does not. Its to strive not to grasp. Humans are like that.

I had a poem I wrote moved from this forum to the general chit chat forum, because of a complaint by a member.

The poem was about angelic beings. I tried to evoke a sense of existential wonder in people, but some members took it the wrong way and started trolling the thread with their own theological interpretations, saying angels arent real etc... But they did not see that it was a philosophy thread, rather than a religion faith and theology thread, even though I had posted it in the philosophy forum for a very specific reason. Eventually mods decided it belonged in general chit chat. Ok, that's their decision and their decision was final, but now I'm wondering about this thread... Does it really belong in the philosophy and metaphysics forum, rather than the general chit chat?

It seems petty, but its an important point. Your thread is about what does and does not constitute philosophical conversation. Yet I see very little philosophy in your OP.

Here's a copy of my complaint to prove im being legit serious:

Complaint aboout post: Pseudo-Philosophy and Mysticism

This threads Opening Post does not constitute Philisophical discussion, its an amalgamation of opinions and assertions that have zero philosophical basis, please move the thread to the correct forum: General chit-chat. Thanks....

When I originally replied to this topic, it was with the assumption that the intent of the thread was an earnest request for more rigorous philosophical and logical discussion. Now, I'm hardly learned in formal philosophy and logic myself, however four pages later in my humble opinion - as I say this without any intent toward hostility or offense, so if such is inferred or caused, please accept my apologies - what I've instead seen is ego posturing and passive aggressive, oblique arguments.

Which is fine. No one is perfect or free from such behavior from time to time, especially on the internet. But the substance of what is being debated has not been clearly stated as a result (again, in my opinion.)

For instance:

LesMisanthrope, is your position one of physical realism? It's hard to tell from your choice of words, but seems suggested at least. I'd love to see you expound on that if it is and for you to use more complete, complex arguments in that vein in your debate with itisnowagain. Unless of course your position is something else entirely, in which case I'd love to see that included fully too.

Likewise, itisnowagain, is your metaphysical position one of subjective idealism e.g. that "that which is seeing" is consciousness? That too is unclear from your posts. Or is it something else entirely?

I would love to see you two debate that more honestly and completely, because seeing a physical realist (if indeed that's what LesMis is) argue that consciousness is merely an emergent system arising from biological processes with someone who believes consciousness as its own ontological entity has some sort of sovereignty or agency on its own and is what perceives the information our senses receive, would be interesting for a layperson like me who benefits from seeing those more intelligent than himself discuss such topics.

That would be an interesting use of this forum, if indeed all parties were persistently intellectually honest and thorough in their expressions of position and supporting arguments.

Without that, it just becomes another thinly veiled antagonistic argument on the internet in my opinion. Again, I intend no offense and harbor no animosity toward either of you. It's just that if higher standards are being called for, one might hope to see people hold themselves to it as well.

But carry on as you wish. I'm just a lowly layman trying to make his way through life.

Peace.

originally posted by: AceWombat04

Likewise, itisnowagain, is your metaphysical position one of subjective idealism e.g. that "that which is seeing" is consciousness? That too is unclear from your posts. Or is it something else entirely?

I ask the reader to look directly to see what is seeing the text which is appearing. I do not want to name what is seeing - there is no name for what is seeing.
Everything appears within the seeing and is made of nothing but the seeing.

Can you see what is seeing this text? Does what is seeing ever appear to be seen?

a reply to: Itisnowagain

I will, this one time, offer my attempt at constructing an opinion with respect to your question as fully as I can with the tools available to me. However, again - I don't want to take part in this debate. My post was about you and LesMis arguing from what would be, in my opinion, a more honest, less adversarial, and more complete place than you - in my opinion, and with no offense intended - have been thus far, so that people benefit from seeing two people holding different viewpoints debate the subject completely and rigorously rather than simply arguing.

So, just because you directed the question at me this time, here's my (probably unsatisfactory) attempt at a response. (I am not on either "side" of the fence as it were personally.)

If your assertion that it cannot be named is accurate, then I can't very well offer you an answer to "what is doing the seeing?" If you're asking for my personal, layperson's opinion on "what is doing the seeing," my answer would be, "I don't know." To my thinking there is more than one possibility, neither of which have been proved to my satisfaction. I'm agnostic.

Sometimes I consider that the information ("what is seen") is merely an assembly and interpretation of sensory input, subjectively experienced by a complex emergent system (what we term consciousness) which arises from biological processes we do not yet fully understand as the neurological sciences and generative psychology continue to expand their knowledge and insight. And that that's all there is. Just a meat bag processing sensory input from other physical objects and events, which we then experience directly as a subjective and not wholly accurate interpretation thereof.

If that's true, then that is what is "doing the seeing" (the information interpretation,) and physical realists would argue that yes, we do "see" that process, at least incompletely, when we cut into a brain and study its synapses, use an FMRI to observe brain function, and try to model the behavior of consciousness, even if our understanding thereof remains incomplete. Personally, I'm not fully persuaded that this is all there is, but neither am I fully persuaded rationally that there is more to it.

Other times, I consider that the very subjectivity and illusory nature intrinsic to our experience of "seeing" (again using "seeing" as a generic term to describe how we experience reality) is an example of incompleteness and that because we can therefore never reach a fully objective and complete perception of the absolute reality of anything for various reasons, perhaps everything is merely a consciousness driven subjective illusion in which, as LesMis said some believe (and with which he or she disagrees,) "anything goes," and as you say, has no proper name or description ultimately.

But rationally and with the level of information and understanding I personally posses... my answer is "I don't know." I'm agnostic.

But please understand, and again I intend no offense to anyone, I have no desire to take part in this debate you two are having. You asked, so I answered, but I will not respond further. My sole desired input, as I said in my previous post, was to request that you two debate this topic fully and with intellectual honesty and rigor - as LesMis said he or she wanted this forum to be centered upon - fully stating your positions and arguments, rather than using oblique language, allegory, or passive aggression.

That's the end of my input, as I lack the intelligence - or at least the knowledge - to contribute further than making that request. And because I would so love to see you two do that in a spirit of honesty and rigor, rather than confrontation.

Peace.

a reply to: AceWombat04

My sole desired input, as I said in my previous post, was to request that you two debate this topic fully and with intellectual honesty and rigor - as LesMis said he or she wanted this forum to be centered upon - fully stating your positions and arguments, rather than using oblique language, allegory, or passive aggression.

I feel that I have been trying to have an honest discussion with LM by asking questions - by asking LM to see if the seer of this text can be seen. LM seems to be missing the point - LM says a bird can see!
I cannot show LM what is seeing - I cannot show anyone what is seeing - the question has to be entertained as the question stands.
The seeing/knowing presence is overlooked because it does not appear to be seen or known - but it is never not here.

This debate began when LM stated:

I cannot rationally believe, nor can you rationally assert, that you have access to any hidden truth.

The answer I provided was - The truth is hidden in plain sight (the plain fact of seeing).
Can anything appear to be seen outside of the seeing?
The seeing is the one that all appears within.
There is dreaming - there is no separate dream or dreamer.

originally posted by: AceWombat04

If your assertion that it cannot be named is accurate, then I can't very well offer you an answer to "what is doing the seeing?"

Does it matter that my assertion is that it cannot be named? If you were to look for yourself you would find out.
If a colour is seen - there could be 5 different names for it - but the seeing of it will determine the colour, not the name.
Do you have to go to thought to find what is seeing?

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

I think there is an additional ethical component to wisdom, something like a devotion to truth for its own sake.

That to me is the essence of philosophy.

But i'm rather hesitant to use the word truth since truth is subjective, everyone has its own truth.
I'm happy to see you are hesitant to fully agree, that means you remain open to go deeper into the question of wisdom.

A rather simple explanation for what i mean is this

On the question 'does god exist' there are 3 possible answers
1 no
2 yes
3 i don't know

Obviously number 3 is open to go deeper into the question and find out for himself while 1 and 2 have their truth.

My native language is dutch, although english is used often in the Netherlands, the problem for me is that i never had classes in english and so often have to look up certain words but also how to formulate the words in order to convey clearly what i want to bring across.

I have the notion that you have enquired a lot, so the meaning of theory should be well known to you.
Latin; theoria which is coming from the greek word theōríā, as i understood it, it means examination, the examination of something, a distraction of theōrós which means spectator.

So yes, theorizing helps to refine knowledge so long as it is not held as a belief or truth or propagated as such.

In the Netherlands we sometimes refer to an air castle in the air which is where they belong, now build the base underneath to support it.

a reply to: nonjudgementalist

Does my post not fit my definition of philosophy? Or do you think my post should contain Angels?

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

What is the term "imagination" representative of though? Is it representative of something like a rock where it can be touched and held in hand? If not, then what is it?

Are you really this blind to your own self? Your thoughts are immaterial, yet they are part of your being. How is this possible within a strictly physical existence? Thoughts are an immaterial, non-physical result of physical processes within your brain. How can you deny the immaterial when you experience it every second of every day?

a reply to: AceWombat04

I conform to no philosophical doctrine. I take a different more polemic and ironic approach.

I cannot engage in a dialectic with a sophist. It is impossible. They are not here for learning, but for preaching. You're not going to find any synthesis between itsnowagain and I. Her and I have done this in nearly every one of my threads. Though I am immune to Socratic irony, I play along.

The discussion is philosophy and metaphysics vs. pseudo-philosophy and mysticism. I wanted to show that few here practice philosophy, and as you've noticed, I think I proved it.

a reply to: earthling42

Kierkegaard and Spinoza are some of my favorite philosophers, so I hold a special place in my heart for the Dutch.

I used to think truth is subjective, but I've slowly started to gravitate away from that. A truth that is subjective is false, is my current view, though I believe falsity is necessary.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: nonjudgementalist

Does my post not fit my definition of philosophy? Or do you think my post should contain Angels?

It is not about a 'definition' of philosophy - it is about taking part in an examination of 'what there is'. What is life? What is existence?
What is experiencing?

Questions to delve deeper into what is really going on.
Have you ever heard of Socratic questioning?

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Thought is a folk-psychology term we use to articulate how we experience certain physical processes. Your eyes do not face inward, so you cannot with your common senses observe what is actually occuring when you think. Someone with any brain imaging scan could, however.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope


I cannot engage in a dialectic with a sophist. It is impossible. They are not here for learning, but for preaching. You're not going to find any synthesis between itsnowagain and I. Her and I have done this in nearly every one of my threads. Though I am immune to Socratic irony, I play along.

Oh - so you assume I am here to learn what you are teaching?
What are you teaching?

I am not preaching - I simply am asking questions which you avoid - you are not serious and you are not honest.
How can you find what is real and true if you are not serious and not honest?

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

So you do not experience thoughts? You don't have to have eyes facing inward to think or see thoughts. Think of a family members face. What is that thing you are thinking of?

a reply to: Itisnowagain

I said learning, not teaching. We are both here for learning.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
Someone with any brain imaging scan could, however.

Are you saying that a man in a room looking at a monitor with a MRI image appearing on a screen can see what the person in the MRI tunnel is witnessing?
Does that mean that if the person in the tunnel is asleep dreaming that the dream will show up on the MRI monitor just like tv?
Wow - i'd love to see that - have you got any links?

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

I do experience thoughts, yes.

When i think about a family member's face, I am stimulating the same regions o the brain that I do when I actual see her. I forget what the current theory is.