Pseudo-Philosophy and Mysticism

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Itisnowagain

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

I consider the best way to 'learn' is through examination, through enquiry, through investigation - by looking to see what is actual rather than theorize.

originally posted by: Itisnowagain

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?

That's not what I'm saying.

originally posted by: Itisnowagain

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Itisnowagain

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

I consider the best way to 'learn' is through examination, through enquiry, through investigation - by looking to see what is actual rather than theorize.

Exactly.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: Itisnowagain

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Itisnowagain

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

I consider the best way to 'learn' is through examination, through enquiry, through investigation - by looking to see what is actual rather than theorize.

Exactly.

So what is actual? What is not a concept, or a theory?

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

I've heard of the theory, but the fact still remains she is not there to be seen, yet you are still thinking of her face. A certain part of the brain is being stimulated, yet her face is not literally in your brain to be seen by anyone else. Where is that image of her face?

originally posted by: Itisnowagain

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: Itisnowagain

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Itisnowagain

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

I consider the best way to 'learn' is through examination, through enquiry, through investigation - by looking to see what is actual rather than theorize.

Exactly.

So what is actual? What is not a concept, or a theory?

That would be a perfect topic for your own thread, and such a thread would constitute philosophy and metaphysics.

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

It's not an image. An image implies something to be seen. But seeing involves the eyes. It's something else entirely. I have not thought about it enough to come to any rock solid conclusion.

philosophy is the love of wisdom and pseudo-philosophy is the love of one’s own wisdom. Philosophy is the use of wisdom to arrive at truth. Pseudo-philosophy is the use of wisdom to arrive at personal advantage.

Hm. If you wish to put it that way, okay.

I know that sticking to the truth which is in the public domain can be just as personal advantage and power seeking as the other. For in that arena, there is an official "winner"' and loser in each opposing view, that gets the stamp of approval from the audience. Many philosophers seek exactly that attention and fame. -Being seen as the winner who has achieved capturing "The Truth".
That give a certain amount of personal advantage in this world. I watched the college girls fall at the feet of fancy talking and thinking philosophers, because they gave good truth. Since they didn't have much in the way of physical attraction and more useful skills for the material world, it was how they learned to get laid.

Creating ones own philosophy, or world view, based upon ones own subjective experiences, doesn't impress others or exude any power over them, admittedly. It does, however, give one the power to form and choose their own reactions to the world and events, giving them power over their own body and emotions.

That irritates the hell out of those who would like to be seen as the holy holders of The Truth, with the control over their body and emotions instead. Those who want that power over the public domain. But hey, you can't please everyone all the time. They'll have to find some way to grapple with their sense of powerlessness faced with those who insist on keeping theirs. If it still bothers them- maybe they should take a look at their philosophy and see if they can tweak it a bit to change those feelings to something more comfortable?

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

It's not an image. An image implies something to be seen. But seeing involves the eyes. It's something else entirely. I have not thought about it enough to come to any rock solid conclusion.

It may not be 'seen' by the eyes but the image of your mother is known by something that never appears.
The all knowing presence is overlooked because it does not appear or disappear.

a reply to: Bluesma

Ha! philosophy to get laid! I can honestly say I've never heard the two used in the same sentence.

I'm not sure how philosophical transparency is related to personal advantage or power seeking. Many philosophers are not even recognized in their lifetime.

Good thread.

There must be modern day philosophers though who we should hold in high regard.

Who are these people?

And of course, as far as spirituality goes or even metaphysics, what could possibly trump personal experience?

Are the new age authors, all of them money grubbers or are some real philosophers with real knowledge?

If I have a perceived real experience with divine intervention, for lack of a better word, and Psychics, then my personal experience leads me to believe that there is a God and there are people with real Psychic abilities. That then leads me to believe that there must be an after life, and that some mediums must be real and therefore spirits, taken a step further spirit guides.

That last paragraph then would lead me to believe that there must be a purpose to life somehow.

I think I need to write a Philosophy book.

What then is a quintessential philosophical question? What is the purpose of life? What is the meaning of life? How should we lead our lives?

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Exactly, it's something else entirely. Something that does not involve physical seeing, it's a mental seeing. Mentally seeing something that has no physical form. That's part of the spirit I believe in, the immaterial part of our existence.

And no, it has nothing to do with religion or dogma. It's an integral part of our nature.

originally posted by: amazing

And of course, as far as spirituality goes or even metaphysics, what could possibly trump personal experience?

Mutual experience would trump personal experience. Personal experience can be delusional.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: amazing

And of course, as far as spirituality goes or even metaphysics, what could possibly trump personal experience?

Mutual experience would trump personal experience. Personal experience can be delusional.

But that's tough. Because if you and I were asked a series of ten Questions, w'ed give different answers to each. How then would we find truth?

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Unless it is material.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Bluesma

Ha! philosophy to get laid! I can honestly say I've never heard the two used in the same sentence.

I'm not sure how philosophical transparency is related to personal advantage or power seeking. Many philosophers are not even recognized in their lifetime.

Oh, the appearence of wisdom is quite a turn on for many ladies... You didn't know that?
The man who has hold of the Universal Truth has power over the world and others- he has dictated "what is" for everyone else.

I know personally someone who has gained much carnal and material profit from being a respected professor of Philosophy. It allowed him to avoid manual or physical labor for his whole life as well... which was probably, I suspect, what drew him to it. It starts in childhood - you learn that with excellent reasoning skills, you can win disagreements with your parents, and get out of things you don't want to do... then you learn it works with teachers, with all sorts of authority figures, and like I mentioned, is always popular with the ladies.

In his lifetime, he's gotten to be head of human services at a major university, got lots of books published, which made lots of money (university textbooks are a better bet than self help spiritual ones). He gets trips all over the world to speak at symposiums and such, and more. Tenure, a very lucrative retirement. There are philosophers making out quite well during their lifetime!

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
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.

Fair enough. That's still a more clearly defined position than was forthcoming before from either of you IMHO.

My only goal was to respectfully request that both of you to make more clearly defined assertions in your arguments, which subsequently you both have, so I'm satisfied by that. I'm enjoying your debate much more now and find it more revealing of your respective views. Rather than itsnowagain just asking questions, and you - again with no offense intended - occasionally being - in my opinion - a tad passive aggressive. Though your reason for being so is understandable, I much prefer seeing you both debate your actual points.

While you may feel you cannot have a meaningful debate or constructive mutual challenging of positions with less rigorous individuals, I still consider it more productive to be direct and complete in your assertions if for no reason other than educating those of us with less knowledge than you. Which is what I'm here for, personally. To learn from those more well educated and intelligent than I am imo, by watching them debate.

With that I will bow out and observe. Again, no hostility toward either of you should be inferred. Just a sincere attempt at improving the quality of discussion, for whatever that's worth.

Peace.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

It's not though. If you can't see it with your eyes then it is not material.

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Actually one could describe it as a recollection, knowledge in the form of a memory which is something we have experienced, recorded and stored in our memory.
One can ask where is that memory, it is simply a part of our consciousness which consists of personal experiences and tied to our brain/body.
What about those who lost their memory due to a stroke or amnesia or an accident?
My father had amnesia due to a stroke, occasionally he was somewhat clear, but most of the time he had trouble to find the words let alone function normally because 5 minutes later he would forget what he was going to do or had done.

originally posted by: earthling42
What about those who lost their memory due to a stroke or amnesia or an accident?
My father had amnesia due to a stroke, occasionally he was somewhat clear, but most of the time he had trouble to find the words let alone function normally because 5 minutes later he would forget what he was going to do or had done.

How is your father now? Has he recovered enough to be able to tell you how he felt during the time when he had no memory?
Jill Bolte-Taylor (a neuroanatomist ) had a stroke and says she was in a blissful state when there was no memory of 'her life' - no emotional baggage - she described it as nirvana. 'Nirvana' means the snuffing out of the person (the identified individual) - ego death.
If you have never seen this video it is well worth a watch to hear Jill recount what she experienced when having a stroke from the inside.