It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Pseudo-Philosophy and Mysticism

page: 7
15
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 5 2015 @ 05:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Bluesma




There isn't much esoteric information that is collectively accepted objective facts of the public domain.


This entirely depends on your circle... And your definition of "public domain"... Main stream media in my playbook are by no means representative of ... " public domain " knowledge I am familiar with... All media really only represent their own "public domain" knowledge... Which when you analyze the structure of these media corporations is very small, and insignificant... People who don't know this are need are a spell.... In my circles esoteric knowledge is easily found in what you call the exoteric "public domain"... Simply because media does not talk about does not mean ordinary people do not talk about these things, as common knowledge.




It is a mutual benefit. The rescuer gets to fulfil their inherent will to power as well. 



I think you are mistaken if you think that we all seek to gain or exert power in the exoteric realm... Some are not interested in external power at all....




posted on Sep, 5 2015 @ 05:36 PM
link   



This entirely depends on your circle... And your definition of "public domain"...


I used that term in direct reference to the OP-


The philosopher utilizes the universal tools anyone can use, keeping truth in the public domain


I refer to concepts and ideas which are held in the scientific domains as "truth", that which has been widely subjected to scientific method (based on empirical or measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.)

"Main stream media" is hardly the best source of such material, but neither are" ordinary people who talk a lot".





I think you are mistaken if you think that we all seek to gain or exert power in the exoteric realm... Some are not interested in external power at all....


Well obviously we disagree. Though I am not sure you are familiar with the theory of Will to Power, as Nietzsche described it. Do you know it includes just wanting to be near power?? A very common expression of it is people wanting to be close to someone they percieve as having power, experiencing it through empathy. In a relationship of student- master, lovers or mates, child-parent, celebrity-fan, politician- supporter, etc.
This is, in fact, is super popular, because it enables the student (servant, child, dependant lover, fan.....) to experience power, but without the responsibility that goes with it.

But anyway, you are only repeating some of what I said already - that the seeking of internal (esoteric, subjective) truth is a pathway to having power over self instead of power over others (though it remains a search for power through knowledge)
edit on 5-9-2015 by Bluesma because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 5 2015 @ 06:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Bluesma




Well obviously we disagree. Though I am not sure you are familiar with the theory of Will to Power, as Nietzsche described it. Do you know it includes just wanting to benear power??


Actually I studied Nietzsche, in a level philosophy... I got a B, but I digresss...
What you say is super interesting... However I have always disagreed with nietschze... IMO his understanding is primitive and unrefined... He accurately identifies an urge many if not most or all of us have had, at some point in our lives, and that is indeed the will to power... But let's not leave it at just that... If we just leave it at will to power, we reduce and cut away all the associations these desires when they arise naturally come with...
A more refined approach is to identify exactly what those associations are and not reduce a multitude of similar kinds of desires into one desire. Although it is possible that for some a non specific demiurge exists that manifests in all desires that person experiences... a will to power for the sake of power.... But that is a condition, that is neither natural nor universal in my view, as neotzche claims. To claim its a universal makes the wrongful presumption that people's desires are un unique, and without sentiments and associations, and emotions that are (perhaps to different degrees) detached from the primitive will to power
edit on 5-9-2015 by nonjudgementalist because: (no reason given)

edit on 5-9-2015 by nonjudgementalist because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 5 2015 @ 07:11 PM
link   
a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

By that time humanity had gathered enough scientific knowledge to be able to build gliders
Learning and doing, that is how we as humanity continue to develop.
Same with the boat, bike, car, electronics and so on.

Of course it is a two way street, the world we live in is a creation of humanity, if not we would still be living in caves.
But here we are anno 2015, despite all the technological advances we made, all the magnificent art, poetry, philosophy, novelties, we are not capable to solve hunger and violence, let alone live in harmony with one another.

So instead of battling about experiences, we should be more serious about the subject of this topic i think.



posted on Sep, 5 2015 @ 10:22 PM
link   
a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1




Yet we do have airplanes, the Wright brothers created something entirely new, something the world had never seen before. From what? Their minds.



en.wikipedia.org...


The Wright brothers, Orville (August 19, 1871 – January 30, 1948) and Wilbur (April 16, 1867 – May 30, 1912), were two American brothers, inventors, and aviation pioneers who are credited[1][2][3] with inventing and building the world's first successful airplane and making the first controlled, powered and sustained heavier-than-air human flight, on December 17, 1903. From 1905 to 1907, the brothers developed their flying machine into the first practical fixed-wing aircraft. Although not the first to build and fly experimental aircraft, the Wright brothers were the first to invent aircraft controls that made fixed-wing powered flight possible.




The Wright brothers' status as inventors of the airplane has been subject to counter-claims by various parties. Much controversy persists over the many competing claims of early aviators


I think if we are using real life examples in a philosophy forum we should not make authoritative declarations that can easily be disproven,

I fail to see what you imply by the Mona Lisa - are you saying it is something special. It may be worth $x millions of dollars but to I cannot compare it to a Botticelli. Do you have any proof that the Mona Lisa was devised purely within his mind?


www.hindustantimes.com...


The real inspiration behind Mona Lisa
Guardian News Service, London| Updated: Jan 10, 2011 18:52 IST
A scholar reached the conclusion that Leonardo Da Vinci's painting Mona Lisa's backdrop depicts an Italian town and also declared that painting's subject was Bianca Giovanna Sforza and not Lisa del Giocondo.

A small town in northern Italy is basking in new-found celebrity after an Italian art historian claimed it featured in the background of the world's most famous painting - Leonardo Da Vinci's Mona Lisa.

A bridge and a road glimpsed over the shoulder of the Mona Lisa, often believed to be imaginary, belong to Bobbio in northern Italy, according to Carla Glori, who says that a numerical code recently discovered on the canvas backs her conclusions.

Mona Lisa"The twisting road from the painting can be found there, as is the arched bridge that Da Vinci would have seen from the windows of the town's castle," said Glori, who is due to publish her findings about the Renaissance painting this year.

Glori reached her conclusion while investigating the possibility that Bianca Giovanna Sforza, the daughter of Ludovico Sforza, the 15th century duke of Milan, sat for Da Vinci, and not Lisa del Giocondo in Florence, as is widely believed. "Ludovico controlled Bobbio and Da Vinci likely visited the famous library there like many other artists and scientists based at Ludovico's court," she said.

A small medieval town whose abbey was a model for Umberto Eco in The Name of the Rose, Bobbio and its Roman bridge sit astride the Trebbia valley, which was once described by Ernest Hemingway as the most beautiful in the world. Martin Kemp, a renowned Da Vinci scholar, said that he was not convinced. "The portrait is almost certainly of Lisa del Giocondo, however unromantic and un-mysterious that idea might be," he said, adding that he also had his doubts on Bobbio. "Leonardo is remaking an archetypal landscape on the basis of his knowledge of the 'body of the earth'."




posted on Sep, 5 2015 @ 10:29 PM
link   
a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight

The examples I gave were general examples, I wasn't saying they were special. The Mona Lisa is the most well known painting so I used it as an example for a painting, the Wright Brothers the most well known inventors for the airplane, so I used them as an example.

Inventions and paintings in general are examples of the mind influencing the physical world. I wasn't meaning to put special emphasis on those two examples, only using them as a rule of thumb.



posted on Sep, 5 2015 @ 11:04 PM
link   
So has the Sophisticated Philosopher, fallen to that of the Con Men of Black Magic, or that of a Realist who would be happy with being always right?

By your opinion, the Philosopher leaves bread crumbs and would rather let the question try to answer it self in the minds it reaches, almost like the story of Jesus, talking about destroy and rebuilding the temple in three days that took a 100 years to, and the rabbi thinking that "That Beezlebob Conjurering Pot smoker of a Carpenter been speaking with that burning bush too much?"

Or would the philosopher generally, just lay the trap for the mouse, so the mouse can figure the maze out itself? Or am i thinking of riddles?

Where as the Sophisticated speaker would obliviously would speak such words of showmanship of their intelligence like that of a politician, just as a pseudo philosopher would clinging to wise words that would sooner go out of context due to desperation for an attempt to be awed?

edit on 5-9-2015 by Specimen because: (no reason given)

edit on 5-9-2015 by Specimen because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 6 2015 @ 01:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: nonjudgementalist
a reply to: Bluesma

If we just leave it at will to power, we reduce and cut away all the associations these desires when they arise naturally come with...


I don't deny or eliminate the myriad of other emotions, desires and drives that exist. This commentary I made was in response to the OP of this thread, specifically this assertion-



The philosopher philosophizes to learn; the sophist philosophizes for less-than-virtuous reasons such as fame, advantage and most of all, power.


My point is that these less-than-virtuous reasons can be behind either type of "philosophizing", or "search for wisdom", whether that be through exoterism or esoterism. Neither has the monopoly upon being virtuous.

You can look at this way, if you are into the virtue and good/ bad pov - these are different tools, which can be used with good or bad motivations, depending upon the individual.



Going further with my personal view sort of makes it complicated to grasp for those into the good/bad polarization, because I feel that humans tend to be ambiguous beings, who can have opposing motivations at the same time, but repress the side that is judged undesirable or "bad".

For example, a person can want to experience power over another, and simultaneously want to help others, but since they have a moral judgement upon power seeking, they repress that side of their desire, making it a subconscious motivation, and prefer to only acknowledge awareness of the "helping" side.

See, I don't consider it bad to have those types of drives, and do not feel they eliminate the existence of their opposites, nor of various other drives, emotions, or desires.

.....but in this discussion, you can ignore that part of my individual philosophy. It is mine. The idea that neither form of seeking wisdom has the monopoly upon virtuous motivation is what you can easily argue with if you wish.
Science can be abused in the wrong hands, just as spirituality can.



posted on Sep, 6 2015 @ 04:27 AM
link   
a reply to: Bluesma

Ok, I more or less agree with everything you said.

But I would point out that feeling a desire to help, no matter what one thinks of oneself as doing, is in fact a manifestation of the will to have power over others... A philosopher philosophising to a room full of philosophers about his or her new philosophy, may indeed tell themselves the will to have power over others is something they dont agree with, and will try to consciously repress... Yet, at the same time there is no matter what they beleive, a contradiction in beleiving on the one hand they are not seeking to have power over anyone and on the other having the silent attention of a room full of people. That is a manifestation of the will to power, as it were. But there may be something else above and beyond that desire... And that is a genuine desire to help others come to a greater and deeper understanding about life. If an individual speaks to a room full of people without a desire to actually bring them to better understanding about life and empower them in doing so, and really only speak for the sake of their honour and reputation as intellectuals, no matter how intelligent truthfull and empowering their words may be, without the principle motivation being for the benefit of others rather than the benefit of oneself, they express a basic will to power... My argument is not all will to power is principle motivation, it is merely the consequence and means by which the others are helped.



posted on Sep, 6 2015 @ 05:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: nonjudgementalist
a reply to: Bluesma


But I would point out that feeling a desire to help, no matter what one thinks of oneself as doing, is in fact a manifestation of the will to have power over others...


Exactly. That is what I meant earlier about rescuer/helper roles as being power roles in relation to those helped.




If an individual speaks to a room full of people without a desire to actually bring them to better understanding about life and empower them in doing so, and really only speak for the sake of their honour and reputation as intellectuals, no matter how intelligent truthfull and empowering their words may be, without the principle motivation being for the benefit of others rather than the benefit of oneself, they express a basic will to power... My argument is not all will to power is principle motivation, it is merely the consequence and means by which the others are helped.


What is the determining factor for "the principal motivation"?
The one you are most aware of? The one floating on the surface of your consciousness?
- Or the one that is deepest? ( shoved down into subconscious state).

You see why I end up dropping the idea of virtuous intent altogether? It is easy to be a good and rightious person in your own judgement - all you have to do is choose to deny whatever drives you judge undesireable or non-virtuous, push them out of awareness... and voila! I am now a rightious person and all my actions are justified and good!

edit on 6-9-2015 by Bluesma because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 6 2015 @ 06:42 AM
link   
a reply to: Bluesma




What is the determining factor for "the principal motivation"? 
The one you are most aware of? The one floating on the surface of your consciousness? 
- Or the one that is deepest? ( shoved down into subconscious state). 



That's very simple. It's the one that causes you to act...

.
edit on 6-9-2015 by nonjudgementalist because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 6 2015 @ 08:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: yulka
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Don't read philosophy from top to toe, you will never find an answer in questions, if you don't open your eyes and ears, you will never find an answer. You are smart, but I've never seen anyone so blind by his own mind.


You've never seen me at all, friend. You've read some of my words, surely, but that is the extent of your eye and ear opening here.



posted on Sep, 6 2015 @ 08:49 AM
link   
a reply to: Bluesma

By "public domain" I meant no one has any personal rights to it, and anyone can access it, scrutinize it, test it, and so on.



posted on Sep, 6 2015 @ 08:55 AM
link   
a reply to: Bluesma

That's why putting all the power in the hands of one individual is very dangerous. Society turns into a swarm of sycophants who would give just about anything to experience a few more moments of that empathic relationship, until they are literally mauling each other in a competition for the most prime proximity.



posted on Sep, 6 2015 @ 08:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: theMediator
There is no such thing as a real objective distinction from philosophy and pseudo-philosophy.
It's only the ego judging other peoples thoughts.

If someone thought of the quote : "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." before hearing it from Aristotle, his thought would be just as philosophical than Aristotle's thought.

There's just too much judgement done by self proclaimed philosophers.
A philosopher's sophist is the next sophist's philosopher.


Read about Gorgias, the Greek rhetorician.

The ability to judge is a precious faculty.



posted on Sep, 6 2015 @ 10:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: nonjudgementalist
a reply to: Bluesma




What is the determining factor for "the principal motivation"? 
The one you are most aware of? The one floating on the surface of your consciousness? 
- Or the one that is deepest? ( shoved down into subconscious state). 



That's very simple. It's the one that causes you to act...

.


Ah ha.... I guess it is that simple if you believe that the subconscious has no influence upon one actions.
Personally, I think it does. We just do not always acknowledge it to ourselves.



posted on Sep, 6 2015 @ 10:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Bluesma

By "public domain" I meant no one has any personal rights to it, and anyone can access it, scrutinize it, test it, and so on.


Objective phenomena, which can be tested and measured by others, right? Scientific method can be applied.



posted on Sep, 6 2015 @ 10:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: Bluesma

That's why putting all the power in the hands of one individual is very dangerous. Society turns into a swarm of sycophants who would give just about anything to experience a few more moments of that empathic relationship, until they are literally mauling each other in a competition for the most prime proximity.


Consider one-on-one relationships-
the teacher and student? The parent and child!
I do want to have power over my small child. I perceive they need it and it helps them. I think they want that from me too.
When I am in power over them, they feel safe, and they are drawn to that power as well, as something they would like to have themselves one day, and can learn about it through empathizing with me, watching how I use it, feeling being on the receiving end of it. Is there anything really dangerous about that?
Expressing power over another is not inherently or universally destructive or dangerous.



posted on Sep, 6 2015 @ 11:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: Bluesma

originally posted by: nonjudgementalist
a reply to: Bluesma




What is the determining factor for "the principal motivation"? 
The one you are most aware of? The one floating on the surface of your consciousness? 
- Or the one that is deepest? ( shoved down into subconscious state). 



That's very simple. It's the one that causes you to act...

.


Ah ha.... I guess it is that simple if you believe that the subconscious has no influence upon one actions.
Personally, I think it does. We just do not always acknowledge it to ourselves.


No, it really is that simple. If it doesnt cause you to act, its not a primary motivator behind your actions. If it does cause you to act, it is the primary motive behind your actions. Let's look at an example. An elderly woman lives down the street from you and asks if you can do her gardening, as a personal favour. You get no money, no public recognition, no reputation, nothing beyond the gratitude she expresses for your actions, and if you are lucky a cup of tea. What is your motivation? I mean the primary motivation tnat causes you to say, okay lets arrange a time when im not busy, instead of im really sorry im too busy at the moment, and close the door on her. Is it not to make the old woman happy? Or is it to have power over her garden space? Or maybe to avoid the guilt of saying no... As you can see there are different motives as to why one might decide to act geneously. And all require a will to power in order to fulfill.. But what I'm saying is, decisions are made primarily by the conscious mind, in fully conscious individuals, and it is perfectly possible for those decisions to be absent of any shadowy demiurges as you and Nietzsche believe influence all our choices.
edit on 6-9-2015 by nonjudgementalist because: (no reason given)


That's not to say individuals never act on demiurges, rather it is to refute the sophistry that assumes no conscious being is capable of fully conscious action.
edit on 6-9-2015 by nonjudgementalist because: (no reason given)

And that fully conscious action don't exist.
edit on 6-9-2015 by nonjudgementalist because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 6 2015 @ 01:49 PM
link   
To think every thought and action as always having subconscious connotation and demiurges behind them is not an insight, its an obsession.




top topics



 
15
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join