But this begs the question, what is philosophy. There are many answers and the assumptions involved in answering it will influence the outcome.
A reason for this is that there are many approaches to philosophy, so that "philosophy" has come to mean many things depending on how the terms is interpreted and used.
First, there is a controversial issue now raging in the profession over "world philosophy." Some think that Western academic philosophy has failed to recognize the contributions of Eastern thought, for example. Others would include so-called primitive thought.
This reminds me a story about an African shaman attending a Western conference on theology. Someone confronted him with the "fact" that there is no literature so there is no theology. The shaman replied, "We don't write like you do. We dance."
One of the landmark works in world philosophy is the magisterial sociological study of Randall Collins, The Sociology of Philosophies: A Global Theory of Intellectual Change.
In fact, UNESCO has declared World Philosophy Day to be celebrated every year, and more is being published on World Philosophy as a topic of interest in inquiry.
Secondly, there are many schools of thought in the Western intellectual tradition, as there are in other non-Western traditions. Most of them have different conceptions about the subject matter of philosophy, philosophical method, criteria, and so forth. Compared to the sciences, philosophy appears "lost at sea without a compass."
Thirdly, various philosophies underlies different world views and ideologies that are presumed. Everyone has a world view that serves as a framework for thought and action. Most people do not reflect on their framework and assume that the framework reflected the essential structure of reality, so that those that presume a different framework are misguided.
Moreover, most people are unaware of how broadly and deeply they are influenced by previous ideas.
The ideas of economists and political philosophers, both when they are right and when they are wrong, are more powerful than is commonly understood. Indeed the world is ruled by little else. Practical men, who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influence, are usually the slaves of some defunct economist. Madmen in authority, who hear voices in the air, are distilling their frenzy from some academic scribbler of a few years back. I am sure that the power of vested interests is vastly exaggerated compared with the gradual encroachment of ideas. —John Maynard Keynes, The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money, ch. 24, p. 383
I would expand that observation to include a much wider range of "influencers" instead of limiting it to economists and political philosophers.
Socrates founded the Western intellectual tradition, which developed into Western liberalism, in making the observation that a life not reflected upon is not worth the living, also translated as, "The unexamined life is not worth living."
Socrates became a martyr for truth in this quest, ironically having been condemned to death for mocking the gods and corrupting the youth in a society ruled by direct democracy. That warning echoes through time, and until recently every educated person was expected to have read The Apology, where Socrates defends himself at his trial before his peers on a capital offense.
In this view Socrates presented, philosophy is a way of life base on inquiry, which requires freedom of thought, expression, and association for open inquiry and debate to take place. And open inquiry and debate are foundational to the liberal view of democratic government.
There is a reason that philosophy is said to be the queen of the sciences, although Clement of Alexandria changed this to the “handmaid of theology.” That, of course, ended with the Renaissance and the rise of the Modern Age.
It seems that a big reason that many take philosophy to be no longer important results from the belief that philosophy has been replaced by science and the scientific method. But since the enduring questions fall beyond the scope of the scientific method, which stipulates its criterion as empirical, they remain unresolved and refuse to go away. The result in competing ideologies whose philosophical assumptions are simply presumed. Philosophy seeks to uncover the hidden assumptions in these presumptions, which are often tacit and held implicitly.
Another big reason is that academic philosophers have chosen to focus either on analytic philosophy, which appears to critics like logic-chopping and word salad, or postmodernism, which seems to avoid the more interesting questions in favor of relativism or skepticism. Neither address the "big" questions, assuming this to be a waste of time owing to scope limitation imposed by methodology.
I have already explored this question of important here at MNE in a previous post on the purpose of education in the post and in the comments, where I have stated my views.
In summary, my view is that philosophy is important in that it considers the whole in terms of key fundamentals, and it's method is reasoning and experience taken broadly. It is a general systems approach that is oriented not only toward explanation but also probem-solving.
As such, philosophy is essentially about the study and application of creative and critical thinking from a integrated and holistic perspective. Being dynamic, philosophy is also historical and unfolds toward the horizon in the march of time. Being historical, in its also path-dependent and brings the past into the present and future.
Philosophy is important because ideas are important and in a complex adaptive system new ideas are emergent. Philosophy is about dealing with this creatively and critically instead of being chiefly reactive and unreflective, not learning from experience as ideas are tested in the crucible of action.
Daily Nous
Why Is Philosophy Important?
Why Is Philosophy Important?
Justin Weinberg | Associate Professor of Philosophy, University of South Carolina
66 comments:
Cult leaders like Stefan Molyneux give philosophy a bad name. Instead of love of wisdom, we get love of sophistry.
How is SM a philosopher? He has a BA and MA in history and was trained as an actor.
Pop philosopher?
Tom - 'The Sociology of Philosophies: A Global Theory of Intellectual Change' link incomplete ?
Thanks. Link fixed in post.
Here is a clickable link
I would be interested to know (very broadly) how philosophers treat the mind itself. It’s not the most reliable tool and has its limitations. In fact it quite often tricks people into the most darnedest of positions!
Apparently, the thing that differentiated sapiens from erectus (us from the animals) is imagination. We could visualise better conditions and work consciously towards them, helping the growth of logic - if we kept emotion and physicality under control (check out the modern world)! But imagination can be either good or bad.
On one side of the line is reality, and on the other side is our imagination of reality – all the way up to Infinity | the finite.
I have to maintain a stark line within myself between theory and the reality of experience. For example, for me the teachings of the Himalayan School are no different to the competing theories of cosmology and quantum physics (the investigation of the very large and the very small); in fact comparing the two streams of thought is really interesting. But these must sit in their own world; and the experiences of the heart, my personal experiences of the self within me, in their own world. One world cannot bleed into the other. Their union, if it occurs, are at a higher level of consciousness than mine – until then, it is all imagination.
Evolution, says the Himalayan School, is the story not only of an evolving form, but an evolving Consciousness within that form and an evolving Life within that Consciousness: – above everything a Boundless Principle, beyond the reach of all human thought and expression – but, all ONE! The Divine creates Nature and Nature creates everything else.
Evolution, says the quantum physicists, is due to random fluctuations of ‘vacuum energy’ creating perturbations in universal fields, which end up in the world of Matter as up or down quarks and electrons – the three components of every atom (although they don’t explain how this vacuum energy ‘knows’ how to create, ‘what’ to create, or how to make it evolve – let alone how consciousness and life spring up out of it).
Mind then, is a playground for such things. But it is only the heart can experience reality. If mind knew how to experience reality it would have said so long ago. Mind is but a canvas on which the understanding unfolds – with you as both witness and experiencer, in the presence of your Divine. Mind is a film; you are the camera – and the Divine the Light that allows the exposure to be captured. Until that happens, mind says ‘what divine’? Ergo, philosophy, religion and science in their current form are born.
So it seems to me it is quite reasonable to say that the whole external world is a product of imagination; and that the only way we have to cross the line to the reality side of the equation, is via the heart and self-knowledge. And that isn’t philosophy at all – that is very supremely practical.
So, it takes someone who knows how to cross that river. It takes a lit candle to light an unlit candle. But what do philosophy, religion and science have to say about that? Not a lot that makes plain sense (once again, to me)? Speculation is rife; everything we learn is by rote – when what we need is experience.
I would be interested to know (very broadly) how philosophers treat the mind itself. It’s not the most reliable tool and has its limitations. In fact it quite often tricks people into the most darnedest of positions!
To paraphrase Aristotle, philosophers pose questions that are puzzling and generate wonder. Then they and seek ways to answer them, that is, methods to apply. There have been many suggested and many models developed. Since there is no overarching set of criteria agreed upon, there is no standard model. Most of the model are based on assumptions that are conjectural and since there is no way to test the models through experiment, they remain conjectural.
Analytic philosophy uses philosophical logic to reveal problems in the way such model are constructed.
Cognitive science is a set of such approaches today that are empirically based, and some philosophers are engaged in this approach. But mind eludes scientists, so far, and there is not only not a standard model but also there is no agreed upon framework on the basis of which to develop competing theories using scientific method.
Perennial wisdom offers some such models but unless one has access to more expanded states of awareness, such model remain only speculative and the alternative is either using confirmation bias or relying on authority.
But through questioning, conjecture, speculation, and rigorous critical analysis, we slowly move the ball forward by exploring options, considering alternatives, and ruling out what doesn't fly.
Molyneux makes his living by addressing controversial topics. Also known as race baiting. His approach is a mix of cherry picking and philosophical arguments. The two go hand in hand. The former begets the latter.
He's a self-trained philosopher (i.e. reads books), a cult leader (not a role he planned on taking, but his followers insisted) and has mommy issues.
“
How is SM a philosopher? He has a BA and MA in history and was trained as an actor.
Pop philosopher?”
Yup.... Tom he is waaaaaay biased towards libertarianism also.... I would think Philosophers would be trained to avoid such a bias....
And he thinks we’re “out of money!”.... ie not science trained thus little ability for abstraction... thinks we should go back under the gold... ie textbook libertarian...
I wouldn’t call him a Philosopher I’dsimply call him a libertarian...
“although they don’t explain how this vacuum energy ‘knows’ how to create, ‘what’ to create, or how to make it evolve – let alone how consciousness and life spring up out of it).”
Right JR but then the evo atheists will say :”well if the facts don’t fit the theory then so much worse for the facts....”.
Sound familiar ?
There's also Aaron Clarey, aka "Captain Capitalism", who calls himself an economist. But really, what he does is philosophize. He's done a "deficits don't matter" video by request from his fans.
“everything we learn is by rote – when what we need is experience.“
JR the sages use rote it’s all we have in these non material matters...
We best learn by experience (Science methodology) in material matters but for non material matters it seems rote is the perhaps only way for now...
I wouldn’t call him a Philosopher I’dsimply call him a libertarian..
In a genuinely liberal system they would be, but bourgeois liberalism is not genuine liberalism.
So many trained in philosophy espouse positions that are reflective of class interests.
Moreover, liberal deduction even the best of it, doesn't eliminate self-interest or cognitive-affective bias until a learner adopts its praxis as a way of life.
Even then, trained philosophers will likely settle on some world new that suits their disposition, which is a determining factor in one's value system. For example, research in cognitive science suggests that values not arrived at rationally but rather based on feeling.
How the particulars of that comes about is not understood. People in the same family with similar upbringing and education may agree on facts but differ markedly on norms and values, hence world view.
And he thinks we’re “out of money!”.... ie not science trained thus little ability for abstraction... thinks we should go back under the gold... ie textbook libertarian...
There are good arguments for going to gold.
According to MMT is about fiscal space.
Some like broad fiscal space to accommodate fiscal policy.
Others like narrow fiscal space to bridle government and encourage reliance on the private sector and market.
Neither are "right" or "wrong." They are instruments in different world views and policy choices.
Objective thinks stand back and look at the tradeoffs. This will determine different policy positions based on different value systems.
For example, Libertarian Bob Roddis understands MMT very well, better than many economists.
He also objects that MMT proponents don't understand the Libertarian/Austrians view, hence can't debate this intelligently on the merits, and and that is a legitimate objection.
“although they don’t explain how this vacuum energy ‘knows’ how to create, ‘what’ to create, or how to make it evolve – let alone how consciousness and life spring up out of it).”
There is an initial stock of potential energy at the beginning, and it begins to flow. With this flow, symmetry is broken and time begins. There rest is the story of space-time-mass-energy from the level of the gross world.
Where is the flow going?
It refluxes back to itself.
The flow "knows where to go" based on the law of least action, just like all subsidiary flows. This "knowledge" is the logos, or intelligibility of being. Consciousness emerges as the polarity of intelligence (subjective pole) and intelligibility (objective pole). The polarity is in the same "stuff" that was initially unconscious of its potential for becoming conscious.
The "end" is consciousness being more and more aware, and then more and more aware of itself, and finally realizing that consciousness is the sole reality.
Everything is always perfect.
This is the process of evolution-reincarnation-involution-realization that drive the dynamic.
I am adapting things that Meher Baba said about this. although he doesn't put it terms of physics or modern science. He is reporting on the different levels of experience within the whole. Meher Baba emphasizes this is not speculative philosophy even though it is based on a conceptual model. It is a report of direct (unmediated) experience.
This sums up the conceptual model of God Speaks, although one would need to be familiar with other of Meher Baba's works to get this in the entirety in which he gave it.
For example, Libertarian Bob Roddis understands MMT very well, better than many economists.
I beg to differ. Bob Roddis doesn't understand MMT, because he subscribes to the Austrian theory of money. There is bit of truth to that, but in comparison to MMT, it is just wrong. The truth in Austrian theory is absorbed in, contained in MMT. MMT does have a definite Austrian flavor to it though.
It is about right and wrong. It is not about world-views and policy choices.
“Libertarian Bob Roddis understands MMT very well, better than many economists.”
Yes but Bob is a bit of an enigma in this though imo...
Calg Bob understands it he just advocates for a different Theory... this is the Liberal Art methodology... one theory vs another...
Neither are employing a Science methodology... so we get nowhere, etc...
Libertarian Bob Roddis ... Tom Hickey
One cannot be a Libertarian and argue against inexpensive fiat, the ONLY ethical money form for government use lest the taxation authority and power of government is misused to benefit special interests such as gold owners and fiat hoarders.
There are good arguments for going to gold. Tom Hickey
Not any current ones, i.e. in the past gold and silver were anti-counterfeiting measures and are long obsolete in that regard as too expensive, including in environmental costs.
the sages use rote it’s all we have in these non material matters...
By definition in perennial wisdom, "sage" means one that reports on direct (unmediated) experience and dispenses wisdom based on that experience.
Those that follow the sages but don't have an inkling of experience do so by rote. Such people can only approach the sages from their own level of awareness and therefore are prone to misunderstand and misinterpret what the sages have said in terms of the intended meaning. From this communications failure institutionalized religions spring, for instance, as the letter of a teaching replaces the spirit of that teaching.
Philosophers using reason and gross experience alone. devoid of direct (unmediated) experience are not sages, no matter how smart or insightful they may be. Their work is not based on direct (unmediated) experience.
For example, the sages of the Rig Veda are called seers (Sanskrit rishi) to indicate that their knowledge is gained directly. However, this knowledge is not mediated by the sense. According to perennial wisdom it is intuitive in the sense of direct acquaintance.
“Those that follow the sages but don't have an inkling of experience do so by rote. “
Yup...
As long as centrals banks (governments) hoard gold, gold will be "money" even though it is not used as such in commerce.
Yup ... Franko
“Have you understood all these things?” They said to Him, “Yes.” And Jesus said to them, “Therefore every scribe who has become a disciple of the kingdom of heaven is like a head of a household, who brings out of his treasure things new and old.” Matthew 13:51-52 New American Standard Bible (NASB) [bold added]
New things go beyond rote, wouldn't you say, Franko?
Discipling refers to a specific methodology which Jesus used with Israelites it’s similar to what we would call today an active or kinetic teaching/learning methodology...
Paul didn’t use this methodology he used similar to a rote or perhaps better termed a didactic methodology with the nonIsraelites... I’m not an Israelite I’m under Paul via rote/didactic method...
Iow I don’t have to go they all the activity of feeding a bunch of people bread and fish and counting the before and after and yada yada wtf...
I can just read Paul here “where sin increases, grace superexceeds” and I already understand the universal concepts of super excess and increase already... I have other scientific education... I’m not some dumb no education Israelite sheep herder having to count loaves and fishes or wtf...
AA, like in elementary school, they will sometimes use making change for a dollar to teach beginning mathematics.... active methods...
”But through questioning, conjecture, speculation, and rigorous critical analysis, we slowly move the ball forward by exploring options, considering alternatives, and ruling out what doesn't fly”. [Tom]
Thanks for your answer Tom – it brought out a few more reservations.
I googled ‘philosophy – enduring questions’ and ‘philosophy – beginnings’. On many sites the enduring questions had been expanded to 10~50; and I learnt philosophy has been asking these questions in the West since 645BCE. So (tongue in cheek) – do we really have to wait another 2,000 years ....?? One thing I noticed in common was that everyone thinks mind is the tool to solve these questions. This is the problem (to me): - people have forgotten that the heart in a human being can learn too, through feeling; and learn things the mind can never understand, on its own. Even the psychologists don’t get this.
On the outside, most of humanities problems would go away under a few simple precepts:
1- Don’t harm anyone or anything
2- Let people be themselves and don’t interfere
And some tough ones:
3- Don’t offend anyone
4- Don’t be offended by anyone
5- If you are offended by someone, don’t take revenge.
These alone would have prevented WW I, II, III .... so simple.
On the inside, the heart understands everything is about love. Everything that a human being does in the outside world is all about what they love; what they think will fulfil them. Love is the most important thing to the heart because its essence is wisdom; and knowledge is there, says the heart, to serve love. But people think knowledge is there to ‘acquire’ what they love. Grasping – not giving and receiving. People fall in love with all the wrong things and fight over them; an empty bucket cannot fill another empty bucket. We cannot take with us the things we covet and things do nothing to bring us what the heart longs for. Fill the mind with all of the knowledge in the world and still the heart will long for truth.
6- We have to understand the limitations of the mind, and
7- The incredible potential of the human heart
So, I do not see any way out for the philosophers - make the journey inside and discover what the heart has to reveal. Transform the philosophers into Kabir and see them dance. Did Meher laugh a lot?? Then the world would not be so ennui ....
Matt,
I think mind mostly learns everything by rote. So most people arrive in the world and learn about the world via rote. Most people do not really think for themselves but follow their emotions, seek emotional gratification, and use the mind to help in this. They adopt a world view they feel comfortable with.
There is a large swathe of people who use mind a lot more. The mental faculties are more developed: - they control their emotional and physical life and use intellect to plan to some purpose, fulfilling their concept of life rather than just emotional and physical fulfilment. Gratification for them has an additional mental component and they ‘employ’ others in their pursuits. They adopt a world view they feel comfortable with and enforce it with a stronger sense of ‘I’.
Then there are the highly developed thinkers; e.g. people investigating the very large (cosmologists) and the very small (quantum physicists). They too arrive in the world and learn about the world by rote. But they know how to take the intellect and use it as a tool to find out more about ‘what is’. Through experiment and mental discipline they take rote and try to expand it into something new. They adopt a world view they feel comfortable with but expand it. I find many have a heightened sense of ‘I’.
When the physical, emotional, and mental nature are functioning at an integrated level, you have a fully developed human personality (the other are kids or teenagers if you will). The search for ‘what is’ deepens in every avenue of life. The ‘I’ goes through a mystic stage and wearies of the world. But not before becoming dominant ‘I’s in some theatre in life. For better or worse for the rest of us.
The heart does not learn from rote or experiment. The heart learns from experience. When the heart comes into contact with the divine within, the human personality begins life anew.
One thing I noticed in common was that everyone thinks mind is the tool to solve these questions.
This is the approach of Western philosophy, aka, the Western intellectual tradition, which takes intellect as the chief instrument.
The Western mystical tradition and most Eastern traditions place the emphasis on "heart," and the chief instrument as in "the eye of the heart."
There were mystics in the Western "intellectual tradition, too. Socrates, Plato, and Plotinus stand out.
But generally speaking most modern, postmodern and contemporary thinkers rule this out.
This is reason there is no somewhat of kerfuffle over "world philosophy." Most in the West don't consider anything outside the Western intellectual tradition to be philosophy, and the non-intellectual aspects are generally bracketed.
Most of the writing in the spirit of the heart is now going on in fields other than philosophy, since "philosophy" has largely come to mean academic philosophy pursued in the West. Anglo-Americans generally don't pay much attention to Continental philosophy either.
When I was a grad student, I and the the lady grad student in philosophy whom I was with at the time (she had majored in physics at the undergrad level) attended the annual meeting of the American Philosophical Association for the first time. We lasted for a few paper and discuss and then headed for the bar.
On the other hand, in the history of Western philosophy there are more idealists than realists or materialists. Idealists posit (assume) that mind or consciousness is foundational to reality. Realists posit (assume) that subject and object are separate and distinct realities, so that reality is dualistic. Materialists assume that matter is foundational to reality. Skeptics posit (assume) that uncertainty prevails.
Did Meher laugh a lot?
"Baba used to have one of us read jokes every afternoon, and someone asked why He liked jokes. Baba replied because the Universe is God's biggest joke!"
— Letters From the Mandali, Vol. 2, ed. Jim Mistry, p. 72
Here is a selection of quotes about his sense of humor.
The heart learns from experience.
According to cognitive science, thought, feeling and sensation cannot be separated from each other in brain activity in that the neutral pathways involve an entanglement of these aspects.
According to perennial wisdom there are two levels of feeling, which Plato symbolized as heart and stomach. The heart is the seat of refined feeling that is developed when one becomes a human being. But humans evolved through the various stages of evolution and bring that along in their phylogenetic development. In addition, the doctrine of karma posits the persistence of of impressions accumulated through evolutionary development to the human stage as an individual.
This results in the distinction between human feeling and animal feeling. Humans have both. Similarly, humans sue intellect which develops along with brain development, whereas animals rely chiefly on instinct.
Humans also have a residual of instinct. For example, there is no rational reason to fear snakes or insects, spiders in particular. But humans do owing to instinct, since some of those critters actually are dangerous.
Intellect and heart are faculties that can be further culture in one's life. Animality can be curbed, but not completely suppressed. This is what "cultivation" is about. It is central to the wisdom traditions, including the ancient Greek tradition.
Animality is focusing on self-interest. Humanity is focusing on the universal. The former contracts while the latter expands.
The heart is expanded by focusing on universality, e.g., the golden rule. The heart can also be "hardened" instead by emphasizing self-interest in one's life.
Along with the wisdom traditions, philosophical liberalism is about the former, while economic liberalism, as generally understood anyway, is about the latter. The consequences are built in.
As long as centrals banks (governments) hoard gold, gold will be "money" even though it is not used as such in commerce. Tom Hickey
Money MUST* be debt, a liability, and since gold is not anyone's liability it follows that gold cannot be money.
*Though one can argue that shares in equity, common stock, is also a money form since Equity resides on the same side of the balance sheet as Liabilities and is thus backed by the Assets remaining after the Liabilities are subtracted. But gold is not common stock either.
I think philosophy and pubs have had a lot of children Tom ... :-) !
“Money” is a figure of speech..., hellloooo....
“Money” is a figure of speech..., hellloooo...
Matt, our world views are expressed in "figures of speech" and they are controlling influences, since human beings are socially embedded.
People don't go around thinking in functions. Sorry, guy.
“People don't go around thinking in functions”
Straw man...
You don't think you are jostling with windmills?
Explication, Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
George Lakoff and Mark Johnsen, yMetaphors we live bf
Lakoff and Johnsen Science degrees? Or Language Art?
Also btw “jostling with windmills” : another figure of speech...
Most people don't think in functions.
George Lakoff received his SB* from MIT in 1962 and PhD from Indiana University in 1966. He is the Richard and Rhoda Goldman Distinguished Professor of Cognitive Science and Linguistics at UC Berkeley, where he has taught since 1972. He previously taught at Harvard and The University of Michigan. He was one of the founders of the field of Cognitive Science, and is a fellow of the Cognitive Science Society.
*The S.B., Latin for “scientiae baccalaureus,” is the Bachelor of Science (B.S.).
Science, science, science.
SCIENCE, SCIENCE, SCIENCE.
Ok good then you can assume Lakoff would agree with me here... ie Its a figure of speech and hence lacks adequate specificity for an economic discussion...
Did you read the article on "explication"?
Did you read the book on metaphor?
I didn't think so.
Ordinary people don't thing using functions. Nor do they employ technical definitions.
There is a difference between logic and rhetoric, which the paralleled by the different between matter and manner.
Figures of speech fall under rhetoric. In classical Greece and Rome, educated people knew the list of figures of speech by rote and learned how to use them effectively to communicate and persuade. Classically educated people also did until recently. Now probably only debaters and persuaders study rhetoric in that depth.
Many people know math but far fewer know much about logic. It's sort of comparable to the knowledge of accounting other than by those that use it in their profession.
In ordinary discourse in general and when technical people want to to be understood by those outside their field, they use not only the logic of the field but the logic and rhetoric of ordinary language. Otherwise they shot the door to communication and persuasion.
A friend of mine who is a theoretical physicist told me that everything about quantum mechanics that physicists say other than the mathematical models is dumbed down for understanding, and physicist argue among themselves over how accurate such popularization are. He said the only why to understand QM is to do the math. Otherwise it is basically BS.
The same goes for most other fields, too.
Conversely, humans use ordinary language for general communication. They also appeal to rhetoric in addition to logic (subsuming math under logic) to persuade. While ordinary language is looser, if one doesn't use it skillful, one is left out of most games.
There is a well-known principle in writing that using equations reduces the potential readership by orders of magnitude, depending on the number and difficulty of the equations. Also, the more technical a presentation is, the more restricted the audience.
Obviously, when academic and technical people communicate with their peers they are expected to communicate rigorously. Otherwise, not.
An obvious problem arises when the people in charge are ignorant of the fields they are supervising, the languages of which they don't understand. Scott Adams made a pile of "money" (USD) as a cartoonist making fun of this.
While it is the case in the private sector, it is also the case in government. So unqualified people are hiring and supervising people in field that they don't understand.
This is a reason that government contracts out a lot of jobs involving material systems. But that doesn't completely eliminate the problem either, for a variety of reasons from ignorance to corruption (cronyism).
The philosophical threads are always the more interesting on MNE (for me).
They make me ask – ‘well, what is my philosophy’?
Can say it in one word: - ‘Reality’. Essentially, two walls (birth & death), the road in-between, little me; and the most important piece – the divine.
I am a lot nearer the end wall than the beginning and can feel its gravity. I want to be able to pass through, confidently, my heart full of gratitude; the biggest Thankyou on my lips. I passed through the first wall without a problem and found myself here. What a beautiful planet.
We can pass along that road and argue about anything; it doesn’t matter: - how to treat ourselves, how to treat others; the landscape - mind. To the aboriginals, the landscape is a product of ‘DreamTime’. The central bank just a mist on the hills. Why kill each other?
There is that Egyptian story: - when the soul has passed through the far wall, it comes before a panel, under Osiris, and is asked:
Did you discover peace within you?
Did you help others discover it?
I watched an interview with George Harrison re Maharishi Mahesh Yogi: - George said that the problem with every teacher that he had been to, was they all gave him a mantra or a book to read, when what he wanted was to be able to see the divine, within him. A dead doctor cannot help a living patient. A living teacher is required and no rote can do the job. The real teacher reveals to the student the divine; the rest give what was given them. So, find the right teacher and you are good to go. There have been many come and go in this world.
So, on my road I wish everyone well, good travelling on yours. I am busy unpacking the gift of a life time. Provisioning myself. Enjoying each day I am alive. My heart says this gift is for everyone – that wants it.
Two walls, you, your road – what else is there?
I gave philosophy a real effort. In the end, I just plain gave up on the whole idea.
1) Philosophers have a bad habit of trying to come up with a belief set that explains everything. Over time, they are usually discredited one idea at a time. Even Aristotle's logic is now discredited.
2) Hard to take seriously anyone who did not understand electricity and microwaves. Actually, before the discovery of oxygen, folks didn't even understand fire. Aristotle also tried to be a scientist—couldn't even understand tides (shades of Bill O' Reily).
3) All successful belief sets have the ability to evolve over time. That is why Charles Sanders Peirce pretty much put philosophy out of business with the revolutionary insight "if something isn't working, well then try something else." Folks forget how important the development of Pragmatism really was.
If you really dig down into it, no one understand electricity - they just use it.
At the moment at the bottom of everything is 'vacuum energy' playing on the 'fields'.
So, no one understands 'charge, positive, negative' or 'gravity'. We just harness it.
It's a mystery?
The philosophical threads are always the more interesting on MNE (for me).
They make me ask – ‘well, what is my philosophy’?
This is the point of philosophy as I taught in intro classes.
This is basically Socrates dictum about the unexamined life being not worth living, that is, it is not a human life as an expression of the discursive rational faculty that characterizes humans. The dialectic that Socrates demonstrated to his student as method is shown in Plato's Socratic dialogues.
But this was not the only method that Socrates knew and taught. He reports the teaching of his his own guide in philosophy, Diotima of Mantinea, a woman about whom nothing is known specifically other than this testimony of Socrates in The Symposium (aka The Banquet) 201d-212c. It contains the renown "ladder of love" passage. where Socrates explicates the path of the heart as Diotima taught it to him.
This brings us to the question, What then is the value of studying "philosophy"?
Through this study one gets a sense of how other have approached this endeavor. It shows us the different methods that have been used, the assumptions made, the key terms used, and the conclusions drawn from the various models.
This helps us avoid reinventing thew wheel and also assists in distinguishing the successes and the failures.
Most would agree that studying an complicated subject that is also important to living life to the fullest is a serious matter and should be approached with due diligence.
Or not. It's an individual choice.
For example, adventurers are more interested in the experiencing process as it continually unfolds rather than stopping and reflecting on it. That's OK, too.
”What then is the value of studying "philosophy"?
I think this can really be only understood once there is self-knowledge; once the heart and the divine at the essence of a man is experienced and understood – just a little is more than enough.
It takes just one small candle to light a dark room; then everything can be seen for what it is. Mind without self-knowledge is that room; you can wander around and around and around in it, and not really see what is there. That is why all of the enduring questions exist. There are more questions than answers, and the questions only generate more and more questions. In one list I read around 50 enduring questions .... !
Self-knowledge provides one answer for all of them, extinguishing in its light all of the enduring questions. So, you know who you are, what you are, why you are, what created you, and what will happen to you when you die. Doubt has packed up its bags and fled that room. And you have the heart, the intelligence of the heart, to pick up its tool, the mind – and starting with kindness, respect, appreciation, gratitude – make those plans to express a good life in a good society. Not that life is about our society - it is just our expression of us, in the moment.
It’s the only thing on this planet we have not tried yet.
So, the heart, then, bestows value to studying philosophy? I think it will end up bestowing value to every other aspect of humanity too.
So, that's the explanation I would give your students Tom, why Socrates said - 'Know thy self'.
So, the heart, then, bestows value to studying philosophy?
This was my conclusion.
The value of philosophy as an intellectual pursuit lies in demonstrating to oneself that intellect is insufficient to the task and must be transcended to arrive at actual knowledge about the "enduring questions." There are enduring because they cannot be answered using reason and sense observation. For the eye of the heart must at least begin to open to get a glimpse.
This can be gleaned from Socrates as reported by his student Plato.
On one hand, the Socratic dialectic aims at showing the inability of language to capture satisfying answers to the deepest questions that are either compelling logically or based by empirical evidence.
On the other hand, Socrates reports on the method for gaining experiential knowledge of more expansive levels though the path of love, which he says was taught to him by Diotima of Mantinea. This is related in The Symposium aka The Banquet, 201d-212c. The ladder of love passage occurs at 209e-212a.
Plato relates his own mystical experience in the Seventh Letter. The ladder of knowledge is given in the Allegory of the Cave in The Republic, 514a–520a.
If one never reads anything else in Western philosophy, these are the passages to read. Here is a link to the complete works of Plato translated into English with the Stephanus numbers to easily locate the passages. There is also the Perseus site for online reading here, also with the Stephanus numbering.
Alfred North Whitehead remarked, "The safest general characterization of the European philosophical tradition is that it consists of a series of footnotes to Plato." (Process and Reality, Free Press, 1979. p. 39) But while these views were foundational to Socrates and Plato's position, Socrates and Plato were approached rather differently by many if not most subsequent Western philosophers.
This is why I decided to specialize in philosophy of spiritual and mysticism, and comparative spirituality from the perspective of perennial wisdom and core spirituality.
BTW, I also realize early on that since this knowledge was not intellectual, it could not be figured out from texts. A qualified teacher would be needed.
But the intellectual investigation is also worthwhile. There is a sort of "intellectual enlightenment" that is available to just about anyone that allows one to break out of the prison of a single-sided world view, the exclusive adherence to which a sort of "fundamentalism" that involves taking a conceptual framework as reality. Few undertake this, however, and remain prisoners of their own rigid mindsets.
So, that's the explanation I would give your students Tom, why Socrates said - 'Know thy self'.
Actually, it was the motto on the lintel of the Delphic oraclemotto on the lintel of the Delphic oracle.
Socrates relates that he was puzzled at hearing that someone had asked the oracle who was the wisest person in Greece and the answer came back, Socrates. But then it solved the riddle by saying that he was the only one that knew he did not know. Of course, most others assumed they had all the answers — until Socrates disabused those who engaged him in dialectic of those false views.
The question is what "know thyself" (Greek γνῶθι σεαυτόν, transliterated: gnōthi seauton) means.
Many take it to be a psychological investigation, or a philosophical one, .e.g., related to Socrates saying that the unexamined life is not worth living.
But those with a spiritual bent view it as relating to the "self" that is beyond the body, mind, and personality, and which can only be accessed through the "heart" as spiritual center and seat of genuine wisdom.
Meher Baba explicates it simply:
There is only one question. And once you know the answer to that question there are no more to ask. That one question is the Original Question. And to that Original Question there is only one Final Answer. But between that Question and its Answer there are innumerable false answers.
Out of the depths of unbroken Infinity arose the Question, Who am I? and to that Question there is only one Answer — I am God!
God is Infinite; and His shadow, too, is infinite. Reality is Infinite in its Oneness; Illusion is infinite in its manyness. The one Question arising from the Oneness of the Infinite wanders through an infinite maze of answers which are distorted echoes of Itself resounding from the hollow forms of infinite nothingness.
There is only one Original Question and one Original Answer to it. Between the Original Question and the Original Answer there are innumerable false answers.
These false answers — such as, I am stone, I am bird, I am animal, I am man, I am woman, I am great, I am small — are, in turn, received, tested and discarded until the Question arrives at the right and Final Answer, I AM GOD.
— The Everything and the Nothing, p. 78
"But then it solved the riddle by saying that he was the only one that knew he did not know" should be "But then he (Socrates) solved the riddle by saying that he was the only one that knew he did not know."
"I AM GOD"
Whoa!! How can the teapot be the tea?
Things are turned upside down, just for us: - the teapot (finite) is made to contain the tea (Absolute). If the two merge, one has to give?
Just because there is an ocean within the drop, does not mean the drop is the ocean. If the drop merges with the ocean - no more drop? Then the drop would not be able to appreciate the ocean within it? The ocean probably does not even know it is the ocean - who knows ??? Not the drop ....
Read God Speaks to find out. ☺
Free PDF.
Here is the short answer in a few paragraphs.
Journey of the Soul to the Oversoul (soul is a translation of Sanskrit atman meaning self. Oversoul is a translation of Sanskrit paramatan, literally supreme self.
These terms are taken from Vedanta, which Meher Baba said was the public teaching most closely resembling his. He cautioned that most public teaching have discrepancies owing to misinterpretations that have become included. Moreover, most of the teachings have traditionally been closet teaching that was never revealed. He said he was making much of that public now as well as shaping it, owing to the need of the time.
If the drop merges with the ocean - no more drop?
The point of God Speaks as a conceptual model is that only God exists. There are ten states of God as states of consciousness. Perfection is being aware of all those states as totality. The "journey" is from "here to here." Only the limitations of limited states are removed so that finally only awareness of the totality exists, to use a Hegelian phrase, "in itself, by itself and for itself."
Meher Baba explained that when the drop separated from the ocean, this was only apparent, occurring in a finite mind because there is nowhere else to go, the ocean being infinite. In the drop the ocean became unaware of its real being as the ocean.
The purpose of evolution to the human form is to develop a sense of individuality capable of realizing "I am the ocean." This involves developing a false (limited) sense of "I" that is limited by a finite mind. Reincarnation is about thinning the impressions accumulated during evolution to the human form with an "I" capable of realizing, "I am God."
This doesn't occur spontaneously owing to the voluminous impressions gather in the course of evolution to the human form that constitute bindings. Involution involves unwinding the accumulated impressions. Realization simultaneously with the final removal of all obstacles.
When the impressions are completely unwound, limited mind, which takes the "I" to be limited, is "blown out" (nirvana means blow out or quench). This is cessation of mental activity (chitta-vritti nirodha: of Yoga Sutra, pada I, sutra 2. With this one realizes "I am That." This is the fulfillment of the Upanishadic great saying (mahavakya), That thou art (tat tvam asi).
The false ego of limited states is the real ego, but without realizing it. Nothing is added to the development of consciousness after attaining the human form. Only limitations are removed. When finally gone, the real ego is realized as the sole reality —"I am That," or "I am God." As this happens, the false ego is realized as just that - false. All that goes is the ignorance associated with it, as darkness goes when the lights are turn on.
Very simple to say but also very difficult to realize. It is difficult because it is found to be difficult to just be what one really is since one identifies strongly with what one imagines oneself to be and get very attached to it. Moreover, it is not just a matter of knowledge or will either, since the accumulated impressions gathered through numerous lifetimes must be resolved, for they constitute veils as it were.
So the drop and the limited individuality "go" when the light is turned on and one realizes the ocean and identifies with the real ego rather than the false ego. All that "goes" is darkness of ignorance in the light of knowledge.
1. The Lover and the Beloved
God is Love. And Love must love. And to love there must be a Beloved. But since God is Existence infinite and eternal there is no one for Him to love but Himself. And in order to love Himself He must imagine Himself as the Beloved whom He as the Lover imagines He loves.
Beloved and Lover implies separation. And separation creates longing; and longing causes search. And the wider and the more intense the search the greaterthe separation and the more terrible the longing.
When longing is most intense separation is complete, and the purpose of separation, which was that Love might experience itself as Lover and Beloved, is fulfilled; and union follows. And when union is attained, the Lover knows that he himself was all along the Beloved whom he loved and desired union with; and that all the impossible situations that he overcame were obstacles which he himself had placed in the path to himself.
To attain union is so impossibly difficult because it is impossible to become what you already are! Union is nothing other than knowledge of oneself as the Only One.
— Meher Baba, The Everything and the Nothing, 1, p. 1
Yes – have read the theory above, from other sources too Tom. The ‘I am God’ kind of thinking; the concept of the ultimate union of lover, love, beloved, pops up in the perennial wisdom – it’s a lovely idea – but it’s not our direct experience. So, for myself, I have to say, that on the road between those two walls, the book that I am reading is the book of my experience; that is my reality until experience changes it once again, or deepens it in some way. Life is revelation. Books on the outside may or may not express that experience. All the rest is ‘imagination’: - hearsay; stuff I haven’t verified for myself. You will understand when someone says this whole world is based on people’s imagination, passed on by rote. Am not saying I right or wrong – just saying I question everything.
A true teacher is a mirror in whom the experience is manifest; a true student learns from his or her own experience while the teacher nurtures the flame; a caring guide.
In a way, from the intellect, you could say that the perennial theory rationalises saying ‘I am God’. Just an observation.... I am no going to say it because it is not my experience; and if it were I think I would be seeking medical assistance. I’ve worked in psyche hospitals and there were a plethora of people there who thought they were God or Jesus.
As far as imagination goes, I kind of favour the Himalayan School theory I mentioned above: - the Absolute Principle creates Being, and out of Being streams the beings, each at their station; from the Lord of a Universe to the lord of an atom. So in this case God (Being) is also finite, being absorbed at pralaya. In both theories, ‘realising God’ seems to be a very human preoccupation. Maybe the rest of creation is just getting on with it? But of course I don’t know.... flights of the imagination!
Yes, the heart reveals both atma and paramatma; and essentially the spark springs from the flame. But I hesitate at any declaration of the spark being the flame. For me, it would be like one nanosecond of the past or the future, saying it was the (omnipresent) present? Or two things occupying the same space at the same time? My imagination says the Absolute could not become finite like the Creator (God) and say it was God because it was, is, and forever will be, Absolute. And the Creator cannot say it is the Absolute because it is a temporary limited conditioned state within the Absolute? So, I don’t know ....???
My experience is wrapped up in this little haiku I wrote:
"I see You ... like a Sun, high above the worlds - no words to describe!
In your radiance, a little star - threaded to the Fire ..."
So, definitely a little ant looking up at the sun; no equality there.
In my imagination I could create a beetle. Then send this beetle out to forge a beetle‘s living, in a world I imaginatively create for the purpose. I cannot say that I am the beetle or its world, even though I created the beetle out myself; and the beetle cannot say it is me, especially while it is a part of that world, programmed to be a beetle. And as soon as I stop imagining, the creation ceases to be; so that beetle would have to be quick to take my imagination and use it to imagine it was me, before it disappeared from my imagination? But, anyway .... you have to laugh!
For me, reality is the two walls, the road in-between, me, the divine I find within me – and that is all I know. There are many of us sparks dancing in the flame. The rest is imagination and I have to draw a stark line between my reality and my imagination. If I am happy I am as filled as I can be. I am not a planet; I am not a little beetle – I am just me. I am convinced the heart is the only thing there is, that can leaven the human mind. Mankind will not be able to survive without kindness. Mostly, everything we imagine is horrible – selfish and greedy.
... (cont)
If atma passes through the rock, plant, animal, human and beyond stages, all the way up to paramatman, like a seed grows into a parent tree, then so be it – but all we know at the moment is two walls, a road and our self – the way we are. And humanity is in a very dark room and the light needs to be switched on. To light the road is the triage at hand; the path will have to wait.
Kabir used to say his Lord did his meditation for him; rocked him like he was on a swing. I take it from that he really enjoyed being himself!
Perennial wisdom is like philosophy and science in the respect that they both employ conceptual models.
The difference is in the instruments they use and there criteria that they specify.
Science uses formal models that can be quantified as much as possible, where "formal" implies mathematical. The criteria are formal consistency and empirical testing.
Philosophy uses attract conceptual models and logic. The criteria are in dispute.
Perennial wisdom uses model that are highly symbolic. The criterion is intuitive experience.
In science the specificity is tight and the testing public and replicable. Most scientific finds with the framework of the prevailing paradigm are accepted generally by the scientific community. The disagreements are at the margins, particularly the frontier.
In philosophy there are many possible positions. Since the criteria are not generally agreed upon, and methods are also in dispute, different models and different frameworks for constructing models prevail. Selection of models is based on reason in part but also disposition and cognitive bias, in particular confirmation bias. Those who disagree over fundamentals where the dispute cannot be resolved by appeal to agreed upon methods and criteria can only agree to disagree.
continued
continuation
Perennial wisdom is also based on models but its models are diverse, partly conceptual, partly symbolic, partly testimonial of experience, partly mythic, and partly owing to different kinds of experience and levels of experience. People tend to chose based on models conforming to their own level of experience, together with, according to the framework, their karmic makeup.
Some hold that these models are diverse and there is little similarity and, at any rate, no common thread. Others hold that their model is correct ("My teacher is superior to yours) with having any criteria other than their experience and preferences.
Others hold that the various models can be view as layers of an "onion" with the outer layers reflecting gross consciousness, and the inner layers more refined levels of consciousness, until a level that includes and accounts for all the levels is reached.
But these are just different models, like philosophies, unless they are grounded in experience, and at the grosser levels are decided in much the same way. As one peels back the layers of the onion, there are fewer and fewer that have that level of experience.
So either one writes the whole thing off as ill-conceived or else one plunges in and attempts to find one's way around. "Ask, and it will be given you; search, and you will find; knock, and the door will be opened for you." Mt. 7:7 (NRSV)
Everyone's entry point and path is unique, which the theory of karma explains in terms of one's disposition being determined by one's karmic store.
There is no general rule or method applicable to all who aspire to realize God. Every man must work out his own salvation, and must choose his own method, although his choice is mostly determined by the total effect of the mind impressions (sanskaras) acquired in previous lives. He should be guided by the creed of his conscience, and follow the method that best suits his spiritual tendency, his physical aptitude and his external circumstances. Truth is One, but the approach to it is, essentially individual....
— Meher Baba, God Speaks, Supplement 2
It's not a matter of what's "best" abstractly or generally, but what's best for an individual's unfolding in terms of conditions in a dynamic environment, experience, and level of awareness, all of which are changing.
The sages have set forth general precepts as guidelines, but these need to be integrated and adapted situationally. If one has a guide that is qualified — and how one would determine this is another question — then personal instruction is on a different level than precept.
But in the final analysis, one must rely on one's own heart as guide and criterion.
"The voice that is heard deep within the soul is My voice — the voice of inspiration, of intuition, of guidance. Through those who are receptive to this voice, I speak.
— Meher Baba in Kitty Davy, Love Alone Prevails, pp. 166-167 and 179, Kitty Davy"
end
Some Kabir:
I have met Him in my heart.
When a stream enters the Ganges,
it becomes the Ganges itself.
Kabir is lost in the Ganges.
My mind has returned
To its own primal state;
I realized the Lord When I died while living.
Says Kabir: I am merged In the bliss of Sahaj*;
I no longer know fear, Nor inspire it in others.
["Sahaj" means natural. The Sahaj state is perfection.]
I am in all
All that is, is I
The different forms in existence
Are my myriad manifestations,
Yet I am apart from all.
Call me Kabir,
Call me Ramrai [God the Emperor],
It is one and the same.
I am not a child,
I am not old,
And the glow of youth
Never can touch me.
I go not at anyone’s bidding
Nor come at anyone’s command.
In my state of Sahaj
I am in the verdure of bliss
Call me Kabir,
Call me Ramrai,
It is one and the same.
My covering is a single sheet
And people sneer at me:
My weaver’s calling inspires no respect;
My dress is tattered,
Patched at ten places —
Yet beyond the three attributes
Beyond the region of the ‘fruit’ [the law of karma]
I dwell in the realm of bliss;
Thus have I acquired the name Ramrai.
I see the entire world,
The world cannot see me;
Such is the unique state
that Kabir has attained.
Call me Kabir,
Call me Ramrai,
It is one and the same.
Yes – I know it is a recurring theme in the perennial wisdom Tom. Even in Christianity ‘I am in the Father and Father in me; I and Father, One’.
I have always taken this to mean when a child looks at the Father, he sees they are alike - One; made from the same Fire but like spark and flame – child and Father.
When a stream enters the Ganges, it becomes the Ganges itself.
So, by entering the Father, the child realises its kinship with the Father and becomes the Father in that it recognises it is the child of the Father. Before that, it was a wailing orphan.
"Says Kabir: I am merged in the bliss of Sahaj"
So Kabir is still separate, but merged (swimming) in the bliss of Sahaj? From which state he must fall, because he is always prosaic, verse after verse, about longing to return?
"Call me Kabir, Call me Ramrai, It is one and the same".
So kabir (the poet) would sometimes call paramatma (Creator), Kabir or Ramrai? Traditional?
I very much appreciate your efforts Tom but I cannot move beyond my own experience - and besides it is a moot point? I am interpreting one way and there are other interpretations. It doesn’t really matter. I am on my road, standing and seeing what I see – as are we all. Granted I could open my eyes wider. I would have made a terrible philosophy student - sorry! I guess I have always thought humility is the best option; just in case the father decides to admonish the child for taking on airs !! Better to be safe than sorry!
Am going to read Diotima and the cave later on today ... I kind of favour the Bhagavad-Gita as an allegory of the awakening of the personality to the self. Love to me is an Energy, Being, light - can understand Diotima lifting her eyes and her heart, to be finally fulfilled, only by the divine. But of course the opposite is true: - seeing the divine all other loves (attachments) are destroyed. There goes your Monday through Sunday. The sun (love) shines unperturbed on all.
I am not sure the cave really is a good analogy for the personality life? Have to think about that one. The personality is looking at phantoms, generated by unscrupulous puppeteers (probably in the pay of oligarchs). OK. He escapes his bonds and confuses cave reality with the phantoms. OK. Goes outside; sun comes out and the reality of the panorama from a hill worsens his confusion. Hmmm! He acclimatises. OK – but I would say reality is not hard to understand once the eye adjusts. Reality is not incomprehensible at all – in fact it is rather obvious. Once that sun is seen, it is obvious. We may not understand it – but it is obvious. He returns to the cave but is now blinded by the darkness? Oh Plato? Why not just bring in a candle and a key to unlock the chains? Unlock one prisoner that remembers and trusts you, and get him to unlock one more, and so on – then no one would want to kill anyone? School them up a little on what to expect when leaving the cave and climbing the hill.
Anyway, off to the cave and Diotima ....
All depends on where one stands. I recall having a discussion with a Muslim friend some fifty years ago.
He said, "I can't understand how Christians can think that God could fit into a human body."
I smiled and said, "I can't understand how Muslims think there is something that God cannot do."
We both got a good laugh over that.
.... ha! :-) !
Hindu: - “I can’t understand why you guys think there is just one God. In India we have thirty million.” (One for every occasion and a temple on every street corner :-) !).
Buddhist: - “I can’t understand why you have a God. For us it is No-thing.”
Science: - “For us it Science.”
Business: - “For us it is business.”
Art: - “For us it is art.”
Humanitarians: - “For us it is humanity.”
Philosophers: - “For us it is philosophy.”
Sociopaths: - “For us it is ruthless power.”
Earth: - “Please don’t destroy me while you are working it out.”
For me:
Two walls. Arriving here on this earth and there is just you (or me), the way we are. No books, no society, no preconceptions, no imposed ‘reality’. Just existence – the way it is. I have a body. I have a mind. I also have a heart. Which one is going to reveal to me who I am? Mind goes around and around.
From the heart comes a feeling. I follow it inside. There is my answer – just for me.
How else could it be?
The simple point: - unless I am separate from what I find inside of me, how would I be able to enjoy it? This is the magic: - only One, yet we are able to enjoy it! Would I want to mess with that? Not so far .... Let it happen in its own good time. In this moment, I am a part in the time piece; not the whole ticking watch. :-) ! I haven’t read any books .....
What is the common basis, which is self-evident?
That which does not change and its universal.
Philosophers call it "being" or "existence."
As Descartes pointed out in his Meditations on First Philosophy, the one thing that everyone is certain of and cannot doubt is their own existence as the one reflecting on experience. He expresses this as the "cogito" — "I think, therefore I am," In Latin, "Cogito ergo sum." Along with "Know thyself," these are most famous words in the Western intellectual tradition. Taken together, they provide the key.
This is the avenue inward that is found in all spiritual traditions.
Body changes, mind changes, personality changes over life, but the sense of one's own existence, which one identifies as "I am," rather than than "I am this," or "I am that."
But what is that I am that is given immediately with no mediation of sense observation or reason.
This is the original question, as Meher Baba calls it.
To investigate this question, one must employ some method.
All the methods that involves something other than that pure experience of I am are, however, less certain than the experience of I am.
Of course, people experiment with different ways, such as intellect, before concluding that the conclusions they reach are less immediate and less certain than the experience of one's own being.
The conclusion is, then, that one must rely on the experience itself and plumb directly.
To the degree that one is successful, one discovers being unveiling its universality as one, true, good, and the beautiful.
When pure existence is apprehended, this is the state of pure consciousness.
It is the same for all since it is without distinction, without change, unbounded and blissful (fulfilling).
When one first experiences this state, it is not permanent or complete. But even a taste is to experience the cosmic joke that one could think that one is limited.
Continued experience of this state leads to stabilization of the state so that the experience become continuous, even in deep sleep.
This is a gradual process of being able to experience all as one's self in the realization of existence as one and indivisible.
The affective aspect of this is universal unconditional love.
Anyone can do this. All it requires is turning the attention. But one has to be persistent in the practice.
And there are shortcuts if one has a qualified teacher.
The only teacher is existence itself, which found to be both personal and impersonal, with form and without form, with attributes and without attributes.
A qualified teacher, having connected with that, is able to transmit the "hook-up" with that.
This is why qualified teachers say, "All glory to my teacher."
Since it is the inherent potential of all, anyone can connect with this without a quide.
But why re-invent the wheel if a qualified teacher can be found.
No need to wait until one comes along though. Put out the call.
Ramana Maharshi sums all this up in his teaching based on self-inquiry ((atma vichara) through "Who am I?"
OK. I surrender ....! :-) !!
I am – won’t deny that.
Patanjali seems to agree with you; probably every seer in the perennial wisdom agrees; then there is John XVII 20-23 agreeing - I can merge my awareness (consciousness); I am, in fact, everything – but under the illusion I am me. Guilty as charged!
All I am saying is, I don’t know. I don’t want to believe – I would like to know. If I don’t draw a stark line between my experience and my imagination, I will end up like America.
Even if every avatar in the universe knocked on my door and told me the exact same thing, my answer would have to be: - ‘thankyou very much, I’ll let you know when I experience something like that’! I doubt the universe is about me.
Prem mentions devotees in history that just wanted to hang out with their Master; reneged on merging. Buddha chose compassion – ‘til the last weary pilgrim comes home’. Christ the same. DK treats humanity as just a stage through which atma passes. There is realisation of the personality, realisation of the soul, realisation of atma (human perfection). Beyond that being stretches all the way up to Being (Creator) and beyond that the Absolute.
I don’t know. I just have my experience; my little pool of light – beyond that there is the unknown. I do know there is some urgent street lighting to do and road repair; light is needed between those two walls. I admire your knowledge of the world and the perennial wisdom Tom. But I am just me .... Anyone else reading this thread will wonder what in tarnation are we talking about !!
All I am saying is, I don’t know. I don’t want to believe – I would like to know
That's all one needs.
May the Force be with you.
And I am not kidding.
Post a Comment