Comparative philosophy

[TraineeHuman]

Comparative (i.e., East-West) philosophy is an extraordinarily broad and multi-faceted topic. I first became familiar with it in 1974, when an academic journal called The Journal of Comparative Philosophy: Philosophy East and West began. Perhaps the title was quite unfortunate, though, because a quarterly publication called Philosophy
East and West (from the University of Hawaii) had already been running since 1951.

However, by 1975 I found out that comparative (meaning East-West) philosophy had already established itself in the academic world as one of the four or five current branches of contemporary philosophy. The reason these were considered to qualify as "contemporary" was that a philosopher could basically be guaranteed to win any argument against anyone employing conceptual worldviews and conceptual strategies from any philosophical approach coming from a prior time. (The philosopher only had to turn the issue into a clash between different underlying worldviews in order to achieve that.)

I remember that one of the four major reasons the Chief Editors gave for starting that journal in 1974 was how the public and the press had demonstrated their apparently complete ignorance of comparative philosophy, at the time, by the kind of reception they gave to Robert Pirsig's best-selling book Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance.

That book was written as a detective story of ideas. Mr Pirsig dwelt initially on Western society's apparent great unwillingness to reconcile or integrate the romantic with the classical, the subjective with the objective. The trouble was, though, that Mr Pirsig kept declaring how he was the first person to seriously attempt, in his book,
to do this, But in fact the subject of how to do it (in various different ways) was, in many respects, the very most central topic in the current academic study of Indian philosophy. And that also included in various ways that Mr Pirsig had apparently not even thought of, at least in his book.

One reason why I found comparative philosophy interesting was then fact that in most Asian countries there were continuous periods, lasting for a substantial number of centuries or more, where the peasants in the field would give over a very substantial part of their conversation time to discussing philosophical questions. And much of
that discussion would be at what today would be considered a graduate level of sophistication.

Another interesting feature is that in such discussions, philosophy would often be seamlessly integrated with psychology and with spirituality, and with practical living. In fact, psychotherapy is itself originally an Asian invention, because in their advanced forms the spiritual traditions usually were, among other things, psychotherapies.

By contrast, Western society has undergone centuries of dominance by Christianity. Very unfortunately, Christianity is the only major world religion whose original followers were mostly illiterate. The word "bishop" comes from the Greek word for someone who can read. And up until at least 240 AD (or maybe 290 AD), the great majority of the bishops were in fact ex-Pharisees who decided that Yeshua had been their true High Priest.

Fortunately, though, there have been many individual philosophers and philosophical movements in the West that can be compared to Asian counterparts. In fact, in Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance we see frequent quotes from Thoreau, who was an American Transcendentalist, and I think the quotes are intended to link up with the Taoist concepts the book eventually builds up to.

On the other hand, whereas most contemporary Chinese individuals, at least those living abroad, still consider they have an intimate soul-connection with Taoism (and Buddhism, and Confucianism), I wonder if most Westerners consider they have a similar connection with Christianity or Judaism or whatever. Two of the three founders and initial Chief Editors of the Journal of Comparative Philosophy were Chairmen of Comparative Philosophy departments. A number of months after the Journal began, one of them mentioned that near the end of the academic year, some of his students came to him with an (entirely unsolicited) announcement. This was that, although they had started the course as devout Christians or Jews, the majority of the class had now decided to "convert" to Buddhism. The other Chief Editor who was also the head of a Comparative Religion department then said that although he had not mentioned this before, the same thing happened, quite unsolicited by him, with his first year class every year.

[mozo33]

all religions are a crooked path of a serpent ...

thing is they all have one thing in common, which is to attain to what one perceives they do not have, and therefor a coming to something perceived as separate from oneself ...

there are many pictures of this, one of the most common is a stairway one ascends into a higher realm, which is a coming to something by steps which speaks to coming to something by ones own labor/reasoning ( be it a doing or a not doing ) and this more narrowed down is one and the same as coming in ones own name as in ones own measurement/judgement etc which is akin to building a city and naming it Enoch ...

you see this in a serpent and how it moves from side to side, its path not straight but crooked, which in picture relates to our reasoning between left & right, good & evil etc, understanding that to reason between two points of reference is a measurement between them and this confusion being a mixture and why you find the tower of Babel as a spiraling staircase of confusion that leads nowhere ...

of interest Jacobs ladder had steps, but Christ's did not ....

i have researched just about every religion there is and found that all of them have this serpent/dragon in their midst, and the chief of these being Christianity ...

[TraineeHuman]

I guess I need to clarify a little about what "philosophy" is. In this Forum I see a substantial amount of
conceptual analyzing. Well, it so happens that conceptual analysis is a very major part of contemporary philosophy.
Individuals such as Joseph Farrell, and various others, are extremely good at applying conceptual analysis to
uncover what probably underlies, or is implied by, various contemporary socioeconomopolitical events or statements
or posturings. Actually they are then doing applied philosophy.

Also, philosophy creates and examines the (conceptual) foundations and underlying principles of everything. For
instance, such a thing as "architecture" only came about on a large scale because first of all philosophers (or de
facto, practical philosophers) clarified why and how those to be known as "architects" might be necessary and what
they should be expected or required to do and how and exactly when they would fit in with the creation of
buildings, and who they should interact with at various stages and what they should have skills in and expert
knowledge of beforehand, and so on. That was all philosophy, folks, until architecture started to become a fixed
discipline.

"Comparative" philosophy certainly isn't the same thing as comparative religion. However, religion of some kind
has had a dominating effect on many aspects of almost any given major culture. Because of that, one of the roles
of comparative philosophy is to unravel the cultural entanglements and extract, and evaluate the merits of, what
are the underlying conceptual (as distinct from religious) ideas that that culture has developed. I'm not greatly
interested in religions at all, except to the extent that they embody interesting and fairly unique and universally
applicable and, indeed, enlightened and very sophisticated worldviews (which most versions of JudeoChristianity and
Islam, and various other religions, largely don't seem to me to be, overall, I'm afraid).

[Ernie Nemeth]

It is interesting to consider that as philosophical concepts are absorbed, the tone of the fundamental tenet becomes more important than the actual philosophy.

It is much like Persig's Lila, in which he explores the concept of quality.

In many ways philosophy has an esoteric component that cannot be denied. Where the beauty of a rose can elicit the most profound connection to the ineffable.

Much like the golden rule of philosophy, and the sciences: simplicity is key, and often offers the most satisfying solution.

[mozo33]

interestingly wisdom ( philosophy - love of wisdom ) which brings knowledge, is pictured as a tree bearing two fruits ...

speaking to comparison ... the tree to the masculine is a tree of life, but to the feminine a tree of knowledge of good and evil ... and when one does a study of the symbolisms depicting this tree of life, it is always depicted in the feminine as seen in Babylon, Samaria, Mesopotamia, Egypt, Assyria to name a few widely known ones, albeit this tree can be seen far and wide as it appears in many forms ...

so to keep this short ...

there are two kinds of wisdom as there are two paths one can take ... one leads to death and one to life, which more narrowed down appears as a choice between them, but one can not choose between them unless one understands what they are in relation to self, as in one must experience them, understanding that we are the truth and it is the lie/image of self seeded from without which defines us as this truth, just as the darkness defines the light etc

all philosophy and religion is rooted in the reasoning between heaven and earth, as a place/perception caught between two where Truth is crucified ...

[TraineeHuman]

Various leading figures, such as Chomsky, and certain French sociologists such as Saussure, among others, and others whose names I don't remember offhand, many in the world of linguistics, became aware, each from a slightly different point of view, that there is a type of higher intelligence that isn't robotic but nevertheless has the deep (abstract, mental-world) structures of language and meaning as its (outer) body, and that it's also not a machine but an intelligence. This has also been known to quite a few of the greatest Indian and other Asian spiritual masters, so that, for instance, there is a whole lot more to the world of mantras (or underlying it somehow) than we ordinarily imagine. Also, every language is semi-infinite, in the sense that the creation of ever more new words and meanings is indefinitely large, and pretty open-ended.

Going even further, language is the "hand-held mirror" out of which the whole phenomenon of consciousness of ourselves arose. Think about it. Without reliable ways to "see" our own reflection, how could we ever have learnt to become conscious of ourselves at all, and hence to have reliable consciousness at all? Also, how else could we ever clearly know or imagine what power we have or may have, if we didn't have the "hand mirror" of language or symbol or sign systems to roughly "describe" it to ourselves?

So yes, Ernie, I would say that primarily for this reason, rather than only because the beauty of poetry or whatever points to something with some degree of higher consciousness, language is a living vehicle of (the soul level, also known as the intuition level of) consciousness. Language not only contains words but it captures all the nuances of our intuitions' perceptions and even perhaps flashes we are given of divine knowledge (and by "intuition" I don't primarily mean psychic abilities but intuition as a method of direct knowing, that we usually don't realize we have and sometimes make use of).

[ExomatrixTV]

My best friend Rinus from Beverwijk (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beverwijk), The Netherlands told me: ... "When I went to a course (https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/course) (workshop/class) in philosophy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy) ... I asked the teacher if any of the profound wisdoms or insights can help me getting laid with a nice girl faster".


To me, that was funny & hilarious :pound:... guess what the answer was ...

cheers,
John

[Ernie Nemeth]

Was the answer...Take a shower and brush your teeth?

It is a very interesting idea: that language has allowed our consciousness to expand.

It is much a chicken or the egg question, isn't it? Firstly, the language we use developed from our need to communicate more accurately. More specifically, the need to carry out commerce lead to the expansion of our vocabulary.

It might have been that the beginnings of language was organic, in that certain grunts were formally interpreted. And symbols were probably first used to adorn art, after being drawn in the dirt for a thousand years first. The symbols were interpreted as well and later used as the first writing.

But once a certain amount of language developed organically, there must have come a time when words were added by individuals that gained favour and were used universally.

I would say that the human condition by itself lead to a larger vocabulary. The social interactions probably lead to the need to be more accurate with language. The subtle nuances of life between members of the growing clans would require the ability to be understood. If small problems could not be addressed, every argument would threaten the coherence of the entire group.

It is hard to imagine how language came into being even with these obvious mechanisms exposed. But if one considers that the sense of beauty is innate in the human family, and the contemplation of a rose requires no language at all, it might be realized that language, the ability to communicate, is very much a question of quality.

The value of communication is in the unique quality of the experience.

Another avenue of consideration would be mammals in general. They are intelligent, cooperative, mostly social animals. Mammals have a propensity for play, both as a means of practice and to forge relationships. In many ways play is a precursor to experiment. So it could be said that mammals are wired for learning and innovation. It is only another step from there to invention by intention...

[mozo33]

God has His own language, but its not a hearing, but a seeing ...

one can not know a language until we think in that language and Gods language which only He can define is a pure language void of all measurement, as it is not bound between two pillars of reason ...

take any word, like word, and you find in the language of God other words can be used in its place and yet convey the same meaning, for example: words of God or sons of God and then one can expand on this as in the sons of God, which can be seen as the stars of heaven which are one and the same truth of which there is also the anti of as in sons of man and grains of sand of the beach etc ...

words/sons/stars in the language of God are one and the same, understanding He is speaking to us where we are and so everything in the creation part of His language He is not separate from, or said another way God is His language ...

[Mike Gorman]

My intuition tells me, Ernie, that you have experienced some academic course work with Philosophy, I recognise the Saussure/linguistic elements, I did not like these thinkers very much, their Structuralism foundations gave rise to today's 'post modern' ideas of the absence of meaning, and the devaluing of creative work in general, consigning everything to a vague political notion of 'power' location'; I experienced a strong revulsion to linguistic structuralism.
Robert Pirsig I like very much, I eagerly absorbed both of his novels, of course there was a considerable time between their releases.
Philosophy for me is the great grandfather of Science. Scientia/Philosophia both refer to a love of knowledge and a desire to know, Philosophy became 'Natural Philosophy' which developed into 'Physics. Pirsig's examination of 'Quality' is incredibly important I feel, because this concept of 'Quality' refers to ALL aspects of our human cultures, what we determine to be valuable, and what is injurious and low quality: for example I see Biden'Harris and the evolution of the American 'Deep State' as being the result of low quality choices, and the inaccurate comprehension of what is 'Liberal and freedom'-these people are apologists for power/greed and ascribe moral virtue to a low quality understanding of political objectives. The Trump camp while definitely imperfect, is at
least a higher quality school of moral/political philosophy!

[Ernie Nemeth]

I took one class in philosophy. I got 97% and was invited to an elite group of student and teachers meeting. A round table discussion group. I did not like it and never took another class.

I am glad I made that decision. This way I got to examine the world of philosophy for myself at my leisure, without being influenced by other peoples' ideas. I have never stopped learning, it is one of my greatest joys. If I were to have gotten this amount of knowledge in school I'd have a few doctorate degrees, not that that is saying anything impressive - it's not.

In a practical sense, I do lean towards structuralism because I am very interested in how things work.But I am also keenly aware that structuralism does not paint the picture of reality. With structuralism all you get is a cartoon caricature of reality. A facsimile that is as close as we can get with our limited understandings.

No, I know better than that. There is something we have missed and that something will change the entire viewpoint of our sciences and philosophies. In material terms, I believe the answers are hidden behind our ignorance of the 'stuff of space' - the ether.

But far more important is our relationship to our Creator. Whatever that is, it is the way forward. Without a spiritual connection to the universe, without flexing our morality muscles, without searching for meaning, without valuing our human family, without love and compassion...we are merely animals with an inbuilt abnormal psychosis brought on by a brain not moderated by heart.

[TraineeHuman]

It's generally agreed, by Western philosophers at least, that the birth of modern philosophy was Descartes' method, or approach, that one simply needs to start by doubting everything. Have you folk ever truly done that? (I'm not saying you haven't. I'm saying that's the true starting point.) Only then will one know how much one really doesn't know. But also one will hopefully then also truly and indubitably discover at least some of the spiritual ("sacred") beauty of what lies at one's own core. This is a kind of method, but it's a matter of not starting with any dogma, which I claim will always be or become a prison wall around you. If philosophy starts from "the love of wisdom", then I feel we should all individually start from looking honestly within ourselves and coming clean about how profoundly we just don't know -- about almost everything. But, as they say, don't assume, because it always makes an ass out of u and me. This is also deeply implicit in the foundations of almost all forms of ancient Eastern philosophies. Come to your own conclusions, your own positions. But always start naked, from not-knowing, from deep honesty.

To quote Sri Aurobindo (who was one of the most famous Indian masters):
"There are two great forces in the universe, silence and speech. Silence prepares, speech creates. Silence acts, speech gives the impulse to action. Silence compels, speech persuades. The immense and inscrutable processes of the world all perfect themselves within, in a deep and august silence, covered by a noisy and misleading surface of sound--the stir of innumerable waves above, the fathomless resistless mass of the ocean's waters below.

"Men see the waves, they hear the rumour and the thousand voices and by these they judge the course of the future and the heart of God's intention; but in nine cases out of ten they misjudge. Therefore it is said that in History it is always the unexpected that happens. But it would not be the unexpected if men could turn their eyes from superficies and look into substance, if they accustomed themselves to put aside appearances and penetrate beyond them to the secret and disguised reality, if they ceased listening to the noise of life and listened rather to its silence.

"But there are two kinds of stillness--the helpless stillness of inertia, which heralds dissolution, and the stillness of assured sovereignty which commands the harmony of life. It is the sovereign stillness which is the calm of the Yogin. The more complete the calm, the mightier the yogic power, the greater the force in action.
In this calm, right knowledge comes. The thoughts of men are a tangle of truth and falsehood, satyam and anritam. True perception is marred and clouded by false perception, true judgment lamed by false judgment, true imagination distorted by false imagination, true memory deceived by false memory. "

[mozo33]

It's generally agreed, by Western philosophers at least, that the birth of modern philosophy was Descartes' method, or approach, that one simply needs to start by doubting everything. Have you folk ever truly done that? (I'm not saying you haven't. I'm saying that's the true starting point.) Only then will one know how much one really doesn't know. But also one will hopefully then also truly and indubitably discover at least some of the spiritual ("sacred") beauty of what lies at one's own core. This is a kind of method, but it's a matter of not starting with any dogma, which I claim will always be or become a prison wall around you. If philosophy starts from "the love of wisdom", then I feel we should all individually start from looking honestly within ourselves and coming clean about how profoundly we just don't know -- about almost everything. But, as they say, don't assume, because it always makes an ass out of u and me. This is also deeply implicit in the foundations of almost all forms of ancient Eastern philosophies. Come to your own conclusions, your own positions. But always start naked, from not-knowing, from deep honesty.

To quote Sri Aurobindo (who was one of the most famous Indian masters):
"There are two great forces in the universe, silence and speech. Silence prepares, speech creates. Silence acts, speech gives the impulse to action. Silence compels, speech persuades. The immense and inscrutable processes of the world all perfect themselves within, in a deep and august silence, covered by a noisy and misleading surface of sound--the stir of innumerable waves above, the fathomless resistless mass of the ocean's waters below.

"Men see the waves, they hear the rumour and the thousand voices and by these they judge the course of the future and the heart of God's intention; but in nine cases out of ten they misjudge. Therefore it is said that in History it is always the unexpected that happens. But it would not be the unexpected if men could turn their eyes from superficies and look into substance, if they accustomed themselves to put aside appearances and penetrate beyond them to the secret and disguised reality, if they ceased listening to the noise of life and listened rather to its silence.

"But there are two kinds of stillness--the helpless stillness of inertia, which heralds dissolution, and the stillness of assured sovereignty which commands the harmony of life. It is the sovereign stillness which is the calm of the Yogin. The more complete the calm, the mightier the yogic power, the greater the force in action.
In this calm, right knowledge comes. The thoughts of men are a tangle of truth and falsehood, satyam and anritam. True perception is marred and clouded by false perception, true judgment lamed by false judgment, true imagination distorted by false imagination, true memory deceived by false memory. "

love it ... this falls under Paul's, Let your women keep silence in the churches ...

interestingly Adam starts out naked, covers his nakedness and yet still hides himself because he still sees himself as being naked ...

[Ernie Nemeth]

All things are in motion in this universe. There is a reason for that. All things are substantial as we say. All things are objects and all interactions possess energy. Matter and energy. Both require movement. Constant movement. There is a reason for that too.

Those things only secondarily in existence must keep in motion to have beingness. If they were somehow to stop still they would cease to be. That is how one can tell the real from the imagined.

Only the real can stand still. Only the real can stand being still.

[TraineeHuman]

"All things are substantial". So, then, Ernie, according to your philosophy,"all things are substances -- which
usually is taken to mean, as you say, that in the end they're purely objects (or they're former objects which
have been ground up or whatever), and nothing else." Well, that's the mainstream view of reality in Western thought.
Though it does seem to require flatly ignoring the implications of various quantum phenomena. To give one example,
if light sometimes behaves like a wave and sometimes like a particle, then surely common sense says its true nature is
really neither of these altogether?

Ditto regarding the view in much of Western philosophy. "To be real is to be an object." But that's certainly not
the view of most (nearly all) of ancient Eastern philosophy, which factors in and emphasizes the "data" (for lack
of a better word here), and the interactiveness, of our direct experience and of the Now moment. (After all, life
is not a parlor game one plays while sitting in an armchair remote from its actions.)

"All things are objects"? Then you must be (just) an object. Which, if true, would raise seemingly unsolvable
problems about how to get to "I" from "me". How do you get to the other side of "me"? And when I say "you" getting
to that other side, I assume that "you" would only be a (passive) object, not an (active) pure subject?

[mozo33]

All things are in motion in this universe. There is a reason for that. All things are substantial as we say. All things are objects and all interactions possess energy. Matter and energy. Both require movement. Constant movement. There is a reason for that too.

Those things only secondarily in existence must keep in motion to have beingness. If they were somehow to stop still they would cease to be. That is how one can tell the real from the imagined.

Only the real can stand still. Only the real can stand being still.

our substance being the holy seed ( seed of the women ) within us is revealed when we cast our leaves, which is one and the same as Bruce's words
"Empty your mind, be formless, shapeless" ...

one of my favourite pictures of this is the merchant in search of fine pearls, when he found one very precious pearl, he went away and sold all he had and bought it.…

[Ernie Nemeth]

I meant the scientific paradigm of the day is that 'all things are objects.' It is the principle component of the particle precept: that when all things are reduced to the irreducible they display a grainy nature - even energy. So the world is viewed as a slurry of sub-atomic particles, each distinct and whole and separate from the rest, assembled into odd combinations and proportions representing every interaction and object in the universe.

The concept of the quanta is derived from this very fact as well. Yet it was observed that because of Planck's Constant there is a disconnect between the world of the very small and the world of ordinary objects. This 'disconnect' boils down to Heisenberg's uncertainty principle and results in the Niels Bohr school of thought: that when all things are reduced to the irreducible they display a smooth, continuous, and holographic nature.

[Chester]

That which inspires my own philosophy -

This is my currently held "creation myth" upon which I draw everything that has informed my operational assumptions and which have inspired my operational protocols:

For me, there's a primal realm of emanation. And from that emerges a Path that is not 'the common path' followed by most SoEBs over the most recent millennia. 'She' is championed by an arising 'identity' I prefer to see as the Prince.

And then there's "the light and darkness" sometimes lorded over by a well meaning but often deluded sort... the champion of 'the common path.' It is to this being so many give their heart and soul. It is from this being so many draw their metaphysical cosmological world view. And (sadly), of this, most have little conscious awareness.

When things get "complicated" the Prince's Bride, from out of this primordial 'nothingness' (best represented as darkness) arises from the abyss to "stir things up a bit" ie. inject a little chaos into the mix, to get the attention of 'the lost' that they might once again, through creativity, return to the basics, the principles upon which Life thrives. This, is my Trickster and, of course, The Princess of my myth.

I see myself as nothing but one of Her knights... in essence, one of Her princes... She has many.

[TraineeHuman]

Ernie, for me personally the most interesting thing about Eastern philosophy and East-West philosophy is the light it throws on spiritual experience and on how spirituality, or its fruits, can be more fully embedded in daily life. Since you're interested in the notion of "object" (or "particle") as it relates to quantum physics, though, let's consider that a little.

It so happens that Fritjof Capra's book The Tao of Physics and Gary Zukav's book The Dancing Wu Li Masters both had a profound or at least significant impact on many Western professional philosophers. I believe those books did so because they revealed, or at least suggested, that many extraordinary spiritual and metaphysical insights regarding the nature of reality from ancient Eastern spirituality had been "echoed" (or even deliberately followed) in the metaphysical implications of various discoveries of quantum physics.

I also know that Tom Campbell, himself a physicist with strong New Age-type inclinations, has gone into great detail to argue that the spiritual/metaphysical implications of many discoveries from quantum theory have some extraordinarily profound implications for our lives generally. I don't wish to repeat his or Zukav's or Capra's insights in detail.

But I think it would be reasonable to start by looking at something Zukav explains at around the beginning of his book. He points out that the location of any electron supposedly belonging to a particular specified atom can be literally anywhere in the physical universe, at any time. So, even if a given electron is considered to be an object (or particle), if we want to specifically locate it (not that that's always possible) we are always dealing with a field of possible locations for it that's literally as big as the entire physical universe. But that fact alone, surely, stretches the meaning of "particle" or "object" well beyond the normal boundaries of meaning of that word. So, I think that it would be more accurate to refer to every electron as a "field" (with indefinite boundaries) rather than as an "object".

On another subject, I consider that the reason AI doesn't seem able to have any soul is to do with the fact that AI was developed in an object-centered framework, and not in a foreground/background, contextual framework as we humans are.

[mozo33]

John Van Vleck, Nobel Laureate Physics, 1977, said, you should always think of any question involving quantum
mechanics as being a question of probabilities. In that sense, in quantum mechanics 2 + 2 never = 4 with any certainty.

[Ernie Nemeth]

In fact, quantum superposition insists that 2+2=4, 2+2≠4, and/or 2+2 maybe = 4 - Like Schrodinger's Cat.

But since this is a mathematical statement, it has no ambiguity at all...2+2=4, always, even in a quantum box.

[Ernie Nemeth]

Gotta reach back for the reference, it has been a while since I read all of Zukov's work. It would take some doing to recall without specific details. I remember liking his style and his ideas.

It is true that stretching the field probability matrix to its utmost extent reveals this interesting conundrum. It is on par with the incredible density of the smallest possible cube of space, a cube of Planck's length.

But if we consider an electron a field, which it is, then the entire universe must also be a field, which it also is. And if the Universe is a field then the planets and the stars are fields as well, and everything else we consider objects as well.

Still, if planets and stars are viewed from the perspective of a field...then the energy of the entire electromagnetic spectrum would have to be viewed as objects, which is pretty hard to do. This reversal would be necessary since objects are defined in part by comparison to energy, which is observably not the same as an object.


In the nineties I spent a lot of mental gymnastics with AI systems. I was convinced such a system could be built primarily focusing on architecture and design. I was also leaning toward a foreground/background type lattice that allowed voluminous input on an array of chip sets with parallel channels for data transfer and core processing.

This was before the days of the breakthrough in 'fuzzy logic' and trail-by-error algorithms.

Since that time AI has leapt forward in usefulness and sophistication. Face recognition is advancing to the point where even just a portion of the side of a face can be extrapolated to render the entire face for comparison to data on file - and in real time.

Most tasks require object recognition/manipulation and part of that problem is foreground/background considerations for orientation and situational/spacial awareness. This part of the problem is avoidable for stationary tasks by the use of sensors and actuators and such for robotic arms and automated processes.

But a robot needs to know where to place its next footfall, track a moving object, anticipate its future location/posture, and continue a real-time update of constantly changing foreground/background details. That is some feat, and it is slowly being mastered by many different teams around the world.

[TraineeHuman]

Ernie, you write: "Still, if planets and stars are viewed from the perspective of a field,then the energy of the entire electromagnetic spectrum would have to be viewed as objects, which is pretty hard to do. This reversal would be necessary since objects are defined in part by comparison to energy, which is observably not the same as an object."

Oh really? I don't know why you apparently believe that any objects must be treated as ultimately "real" at all. Or why they're conceptually necessary at all. For just one Eastern example of a different view, consider the Indian notion that everything you (apparently) experience as an object is maya (illusion). Also, consider how the entire underlying "world" of mathematical logic, and hence of all "things" mathematical as well, is built solely out of functions (which are one type of relation) and relations. No objects, anywhere, at all, except for things totally reducible to, and fully definable as, relations (and without any constants in them). (Incidentally, the counting numbers such as 1, 2, 3 and so on, aren't objects. They are a (very abstract) type of relation or else, if you like, adjective.) Hmm. Isn't the world of mathematics used as some kind of underlay for physics? So, whatever you're referring to as "the energy of the entire electromagnetic spectrum", is that mathematically defined, I wonder, and hence, if we look at what's ultimately real in the implicit underlying "world" of mathematics, would then necessarily have to be relational?

The mainstream Eastern view, as I understand it, and as Zukav was trying to lead his readers to the beginnings of, is that everything that's real is a relation (that's the "inter" part, but not the things being joined, and definitely not "nounizing" or "objectizing" the "inter" part at all, either). Not an object at all. Not if it;s truly real. No objects anywhere. Any supposed "object" is embedded in and not totally separable from networks of interrelation and interdependence that stretch ultimately to the "ends" of the "universe". I've inserted quotation marks because those words are nouns and therefore convey a strong bias towards nounhood (and hence objecthood)which in reality is just illusory or distorted.

[Ernie Nemeth]

These are not my personal views. I am taking the stance of popular science and the philosophy of materialism.

I spent many years as a youngster walking around the neighbourhood at night thinking about philosophy. I spent months with just the question: Is there a god?

And I would spend many more months on topics like the nature of consciousness, the universe and cosmology, science in the broadest sense, inventions, and much more.

Because, I wanted to have my own theories, my own observations, my own conclusions to test a fundamental idea: that all thinking beings begin with the same major concerns and arrive at the same general questions, and so their thinking should follow along similar trains of logical analysis.

Only then did I begin to study the old masters of western thought. I made copious notes. Spent long hours with some philosophies and discarded many others with only a passing perusal if their ideas were too far out of sync with my own.

In the end I decided that Kant came closest to my own views. I also concluded that thinking beings, on this planet at least, seem incapable of original thought, and merely revive old thoughts and package them in a seemingly unique manner. But the fundamental thinking always follows the same pertinent avenues. I did not conclude what the reason was for this, having not yet arrived at the idea that human thought is corralled, regulated, and censored on a regular basis.


Quantum mechanics set my mind on fire. It was the perfect perspective from which to draw tangential connections to far ranging topics that otherwise have no reasonable connection. Some of these topics include astrology, evolution, learning, holography, kirlian energy, black holes and stars, solar system formation, time/space dilation, gravity, atomic structure, waveform transforms, and many others.

The universe has a function. Function determines form. Form and function are inseparable, as one defines and delineates the other. That is why I said if function replaces form, then form must replace function.


And if the assumption must be that what is stated must be my opinion let me give mine, then:

The best philosophy I have ever encountered refutes materiality altogether. But it goes even further to reject reality too, stating that reality is a state of mind the person has mistakenly created.

The body itself is a learning tool the mind created in an effort to invent a time and a place that never existed. But the mind is not an invention, being created whole and without limits and extended to creation by the Creator. Invention is not a function of those created whole, implying as it does a thing not known before. The state of not knowing is impossible to the created.

Nothing without a function can exist.

And if we do share a mind then the universe is holographic and we are merely figments of our own making.

Until we learn that all distinctions are relative we will not understand that all relativistic attributes are only approximations with no actual definitive form. Without form there cannot be function.



Another way of understanding this relationship is to consider the state and the transform, or the particle and the wave. One is the collapsed wave function expressed, the other is the wave function probability of expression itself.

Still another way of looking at this is Bohm's implicate and explicate world order, where the implicate world of the quanta gives rise to the explicate world of the manifest universe.

In your parlance above, the world of adjectives gives rise to the world of nouns by unpacking the implied from the intrinsic.

[TraineeHuman]

Well, Kant created what was probably the biggest and a very overdue revolution, and the biggest shakeup, in the history of Western thought (particularly at a philosophical or theory of knowledge level). In a nutshell, what he very convincingly argued, and even largely demonstrated, was that an accurate perception of "things" "in themselves", meaning in their true nature, is impossible, at least for human minds. And as a corollary of that, it followed that such "things" as time and space and so on and so forth, as "things", which is what Westerners had conceived these to be, must be mere illusions, shared fantasies, and nothing more, created by our minds.

So, the Western worldview was and in many cases remains very deeply and inextricably committed to the presumption and belief that all substantial "things" are objects. But this presumption was not at all ever even remotely entertained in Zen, nor in ancient Taoism (though there are today two "branches" of Taoism, but I don't include as genuine the branch that spends much time chanting mantras as prayers and expecting magical results from that). So, from the viewpoint of Zen and ancient core Taoism, Kant had in effect merely just proved that the notion of "objects", or "particles", or "substances" is fatally ineffective when it comes to explaining (let alone experiencing) the true nature of reality. And, er, also, when did you come to realize you needed to stop beating your wife? We should include not just Zen and core Taoism, but certainly Vedanta also. Vedanta, in whatever of its various forms, also subscribed, among other things, to the notion of maya. The concept of maya doesn't say that "everything is an illusion", as some misinformed Westerers believe. What it does say is that if we are unfortunate enough to conceive all "things" to be objects (or particles, etc), then that is altogether and purely an illusory conception. So, Kant's revolutionary and quite correct discovery wasn't saying much that was new, as far as mainstream ancient Eastern thought was concerned.

I believe another question, though, Ernie, might be whether or to how great an extent you yourself may have disentangled the notion of a "thing" from necessarily meaning an object or particle etc?

[Ernie Nemeth]

The first fifty or so lessons in ACIM are all about unseeing the 'things' around me. Basically they are all set up as negation, 'Nothing I see means anything', is the very first lesson. So yes, I've done a whole lot of that. It is very disturbing to meditate on the above, for example, because it refutes everything I think I believe. Fifty days straight of it can make one go bonkers. And then the lessons just get more and more difficult.

These days I am keenly focused on the subtle manipulation by unseen forces, and wondering if they are real or if I am the cause. I suspect I am the cause, but often it is impossible to believe I would do what happens to myself.

That and the usual assortment of critters constantly underfoot are my concern at this time. The Archons, or bugs, or lesser demons, or whatever one wishes to call them. I do not communicate directly with them, not even sure if they are sentient.

They are all that's left these days with any interest in me it seems. There's no more communiques from the good side. Of course I did tell them to back off, as I did not trust they had my best interest at heart. I insist now on direct contact with the godhead, which doesn't happen often - only when I need it most.

I don't expect to see through the veil this time around. Not interested. I figure I purposely had my memory erased for some reason I thought was important when I had all my faculties. Why in the world would I second guess myself in this limited state I find myself in? It seems counter-productive.

If I'm in the mood, and if I peer just slightly out of focus, I can see through the illusion. I am almost convinced of the fact this world is an illusion of my own demented imagination. There is nothing in this world that is the way I believe it to be, and so there is really no reason to get all worked up about it. And nothing in this world has value beyond the value I place on it. By itself it is not even there.

I know what I should do, what I am called to do. But it pisses me off that it has come to this. I never expected such a drastic course change/correction to be required of an earnest seeker. I thought it would turn out different. I am grateful for this life and for being allowed to play my own game. I really don't want to play another's, even if that game is the real 'thing'. When I'm dead will be soon enough for me.

So I am allowed to wander aimlessly through this world, with one foot in and one foot out of the real world. Honestly, it's a nuisance.

But like they say, once you walk through the door, there's no going back.
You can't unlearn what has been taught in truth.

[Michel Leclerc]

interestingly wisdom ( philosophy - love of wisdom ) which brings knowledge, is pictured as a tree bearing two fruits ...

...

Interestingly, dear Mozo23, the Belgian-French philosopher and psychoanalyst Luce Irigaray suggests that "philosophia" in Greek was not so much the love of wisdom as the wisdom about love (linguistically speaking, the word can mean both).

Love being "philia", which word itself is the noun derived from the adjective "philos" (beloved, loved), is etymologically related to "phallos" (male sexual organ) in Greek, and to the Latin "filius" (son) and "fellatio" (fellatio).

Her explanation is certainly vindicated by Socrates' thinking and dialectics in Plato’s writings. After all, young Alcibiades used to try and seduce Socrates (being more than a little in love with the older wise man) into sharing with him all his wisdom about what love really is and how it is best approached. In that, Socrates, being irreproachably unapproachable, politely declined Alcibiades' offer, but in explaining got major help from his inspiring goddess-like Diotima, who was a female being. (Alas, no Diotimos there.)

As a modern-day Diotima then, Luce Irigaray feels it to be a good idea when philosophy were to love more wisdom about love than just wisdom by itself.

[TraineeHuman]

Ernie, you raise a large number of different issues and lifeviews. Here's my response to a few of them.
As far as I can observe, the very nature of human beings is, or has been, to seek to transform into something
greater than oneself, something more than oneself. Often, in fact usually, they do so in many misguided ways (and
that's "the human condition" right there). But over the course of lifetimes, and even the course of one lifetime,
we keep learning the lessons. I'm not sure if that fits into your "form reflects function" view (it's more like
"execution of function transforms and then transcends form"?), but humans seem to me to be straining at the bit to
ultimately, one day, soar with wings, no matter how long that takes (in lifetimes, including many delays and
setbacks). That's the day when they will turn their impossible dream into reality. I don't see that aim as being
too idealistic, because, as I see it, humans are surprisingly robust creatures. From human to light beings to
divine beings to self-determining Divine truth to "Isness" itself, ultimately speaking. What balls they have (and
whatever the female equivalent is)!

Also, staying with the human condition for a moment, We all have so much room for individual error -- but isn't that the price for having the potential for great individuality and creativity, and ultimately super-human realization?

Everything in the universe is secretly or openly yearning for the most ultimate freedom. Why does that seem to be
the real goal of humans, but not so much of, say, my cats?

I do have all sorts of difficulties making full sense of the notion of "form and function reflect each other".
More specifically, what about comfort zones? Why is every creature and lifeform so attached to their :own" chains? Why do they imagine chains are comfortable at all? Humans are attached to them as well, but humans somehow have
the sense to crash their way out.

[mozo33]

interestingly wisdom ( philosophy - love of wisdom ) which brings knowledge, is pictured as a tree bearing two fruits ...

...

Interestingly, dear Mozo23, the Belgian-French philosopher and psychoanalyst Luce Irigaray suggests that "philosophia" in Greek was not so much the love of wisdom as the wisdom about love (linguistically speaking, the word can mean both).

Love being "philia", which word itself is the noun derived from the adjective "philos" (beloved, loved), is etymologically related to "phallos" (male sexual organ) in Greek, and to the Latin "filius" (son) and "fellatio" (fellatio).

Her explanation is certainly vindicated by Socrates' thinking and dialectics in Plato’s writings. After all, young Alcibiades used to try and seduce Socrates (being more than a little in love with the older wise man) into sharing with him all his wisdom about what love really is and how it is best approached. In that, Socrates, being irreproachably unapproachable, politely declined Alcibiades' offer, but in explaining got major help from his inspiring goddess-like Diotima, who was a female being. (Alas, no Diotimos there.)

As a modern-day Diotima then, Luce Irigaray feels it to be a good idea when philosophy were to love more wisdom about love than just wisdom by itself.

the scriptures speak of two types of love ... agape/ masculine and phileo/feminine , one is boundless the other measured ... the love of the world is Phileo, it is a responsive love, it only responds for gain ...

or as Jesus said (loose translation) ..."if you only love those who love you, what have you done ?"

[TraineeHuman]

Ernie, I'm still trying to figure out some aspects of exactly what you mean ot presuppose the connection between "form" and "function" to be. I need to kind of guess what the likeliest possibilities of what you mean seem to be, and then I need to work out some questions that will hopefully pin down what the contentious issues are, at least for me. In the meantime, here's a description of some of my experience of the subatomic.

A few decades ago, on rare occasions I would find myself journeying in consciousness and visiting the subatomic world(s). I guess I should say "worlds" plural because sometimes it looked exactly like what you see in photos of a subatomic cloud chamber (but in black and red instead of black and white). And at other times I could see it interacting with another level of world that was larger, and macroscopic. I think almost each time I didn't deliberately intend to go there. But it was just simply one (or two) of the real worlds or universes that consciousness could visit on this planet. I guess you could describe it as accidental remote viewing, or as astral travel into the submicroscopic physical realm. Just me taking a wander wherever I was being led and trying to assuage my curiosity about other worlds that were in some way interacting with the one(s) I was normally in.

The emotional atmosphere there was something else. Rather like the atmosphere in the Jurassic World movies, where creatures or forces more physically powerful than you seemed to be threatening to do a surprise raid on you at any time. Also a little reminiscent of Dante's "circles of hell". A kind of subtle and quiet ongoing threat of horror, that wasn't contrived or made vulgar like it nearly always is in horror movies, but seeming all the more convincingly real or possible because it was mostly quiet and understated. So, if you think life is tough in the rat race and oppression in our society, that's nothing compared to what the poor old electrons and photons etc have to go through in their world. And yes, they did seem to have consciousness, and high intelligence, somehow.

So I do also know from sort-of-direct experience that there's a certain discontinuity and barrier between that micro- world and the "normal" physical world.

[TraineeHuman]

Ernie, when you talk about the relationship between "form" and "function", my first big problem is that the word
"function" seems to presuppose that something (namely, "form") is restraining the free activity of whatever it is that
possesses the form under consideration. So, it seems to me, this would already be presupposing a certain
relationship between "form' and "activity" that constrains the activity considered to only being whatever will fit
the conclusion or model that you want [or someone wants] to impose. I'll agree that form (the form of a thing) has
some effect on what types of activities may be possible for it. But "function" sounds to me like it implies some
kind of value judgment, that thereby further curtails or distorts that freedom of activity.

Secondly, consideration of the implications of the concept of "form" is anything but straightforward. As you know, the Western
side of the history of the concept of form goes something like this. As the word is used in science, the term
comes from Aristotle. Aristotle decreed that everything that was real was a substance (an object), and had form and
matter, and existed in space (which Aristotle conceived to be empty and inert). And that everything in the
physical universe was made out of form, matter and space. Unfortunately, though, by a certain point in the
twentieth century, physics had proved that "matter" always reduces to form(s) and space, so that ultimately the
whole notion of "matter" became superfluous. And yet, physicists and other scientists still cling to talking of
[the already disproved and defunct notion of] "matter", particularly with so-called "dark matter". Probably sour
grapes, I tend to think, but it's not science.

So, then, in the world of physics, "form" becomes everything that isn't "space". I therefore have even further
qualms about "everything non-space" somehow being equivalent to "function".
The ancient Eastern notion of space is that space is, among other things, by no means not empty. Such an
understanding of space only entered Western physics with the work of Riemann in the nineteenth century. Riemann
proved that space is usually "curved", i.e. it exerts its own intrinsic force.

These are only some of the concerns I have upfront before going into detail. I haven't seen any reference in your
statements so far showing that you're aware, for example, that Heisenberg collaborated so extensively with the
Indian physicist Ghose that it's been suggested it was unethical for Heisenberg not to list Ghose as the outright
co-author of his most famous pieces. Heisenberg was himself unable to make sense of his data until Ghose detailed
various notions in Indian cosmology which then provided a coherent account, which Heisenberg then adopted.

Similarly, I don't know how familiar you are with The Dancing Wu Li Masters. That provides many examples of how
various major discoveries of Western physics vindicate, and are much better and more coherently explained by,
various metaphysical principles (worldviews) from ancient Taoism.

Also, you'll know that most of the most famous researchers who
initially developed subatomic physics were deeply into mysticism, whether Eastern or Western or both. de Broglie
even wrote a number of books containing his many mystical insights.

[mozo33]

"The world (so to speak) of frequency/oscillation and its effects are just as viable in consciousness as they are to matter (in one view), think how states of matter are effected by frequency/ a wave length (spiritually think of a wave length as hills and valleys found in the journey, and the law time/distance (peak to peak, valley to valley) is to us), it permeates everything that we have thus found about the universe we live in (considering that our bodies (and all things really) in a sense), are in a liquid state), it orders matter (a frequency identifying the quantum of energy that (let’s say a photon) something carries, like a signature, the same way it orders consciousness (speaking of soul), knowing that everything testifies of us even as we are the definers of it, which is the reality of God as the truth of self-walking in us.

To eat (only) that which grows of itself, is the same truth of a well in us that springs up unto eternal life; it is the knowledge of this life (which like knowledge is not separate from self, as spirit is not separate from soul) that becomes our present truth of it." x141

[Ernie Nemeth]

What I mean, or as I understand it to mean, by form is not even necessarily substance. Form is the state, whatever moment you are in, the world around us freezes for just an instant. In that instant there is form.

When the state changes, that is when the moment is over, the state changes in accordance with its 'nature' or 'function'. And during this instant, the transition to the next instant, there is no form anywhere, as everything in the universe is in the process of changing state to the next instant.

These are my own words and my own conclusions based on the empirical work done in physics over a hundred years ago now. Niels Bohr began the turmoil by describing the nature of the electron shells around atoms. And no, I did not know about Heisenberg's collaboration.

But it was while trying to determine if electrons really did have a certain quantitative anomaly associated with their uptake in an atom. But it seemed impossible to both determine an electron's position and its energy level at the same time, which lead to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle.

There seems to be a quanta of time as well. It seems that time passes in packets, with one packet fixing the properties of substances while the next packet seems to allow disassociation and reassembly. If the world is not grainy, time seems to be just that.

[Michel Leclerc]

interestingly wisdom ( philosophy - love of wisdom ) which brings knowledge, is pictured as a tree bearing two fruits ...

...



As a modern-day Diotima then, Luce Irigaray feels it to be a good idea when philosophy were to love more wisdom about love than just wisdom by itself.

the scriptures speak of two types of love ... agape/ masculine and phileo/feminine , one is boundless the other measured ... the love of the world is Phileo, it is a responsive love, it only responds for gain ...

or as Jesus said (loose translation) ..."if you only love those who love you, what have you done ?"

Thank you, dear Mozo. Where does either the Old or the New Testament state that agape is masculine and philia is feminine? (...“phileo” is not a noun, but the first person singular of the verb "philein" meaning “to love”... the noun is "philia"...).

[mozo33]

hi Michel

the whole book speaks to it ... it is the pattern of the two's which are seen in the very first verse ( heaven & earth ) bearing in mind there is no gender in consciousness, but gender explains consciousness ... and it is how the bible is written ... two sons or two perceptions of Adam/man ...

thing is and this mind blowing beyond belief, these two ( two witnesses ) both speak as one, or both reveal the one we are (light and darkness being the same to God)

in the scrip the feminine is seen as coming out or being separated of/from the masculine as in our spirit masculine and our soul feminine or heaven masculine and earth feminine etc and these two pictured in a myriad of forms throughout the book both in the feminine and masculine, for example Hagar and Sarah in the feminine or Esau and Jacob in the masculine ...

to understand the book is to understand the division seen as a river which parted into four heads .. the fourth river Euphrates being the sum of them which flowed through Babylon/confusion ...

i will stop here because unless you begin to see the pattern of the two's which is a viewing of the two perceptions we are caught between what i write further will appear as gobbledygook ....

[TraineeHuman]

Western physics, like Western intellectual thought in general, had for centuries been based on the assumption that everything that is real is, ultimately, an object (a substance), or a collection of objects. The most basic property of a substance or object was that it didn't suddenly change form depending on what environment it was in. The very essence of an object was that it stayed basically the same, and got altered only around the edges, so to speak, if at all. However, the discovery that a certain "substance", namely light, sometimes exists as a wave and sometimes, in a different environment, as separate particles contradicted (and continues to contradict) the very essence of what made an object an object.

Really, the only way out of this dilemma is to admit that in some sense the situation itself is what determines what form an object within it takes. So, physical reality (and reality in general, and meaning in general) is now construed as being made out of, or by, situations, or contexts (of existing). That's the closest I can get to "function comes first, and determines form", Ernie.

A variant on this is to talk in terms of foreground/background, though here "background" means almost the same thing as "context" or "situation". This theoretical underlay goes very well with "living in the Now". While Western thought was, in its own particular way, mostly preoccupied with downplaying the Now, ancient Eastern thought and culture had always given it a profound and central emphasis. However, the philosopher Kirkegaard's entire philosophy was about the eternal Now (the "existentielle" moment) and what living true to that really means. He was possibly the most influential figure in nineteenth century Western philosophy, and in twentieth century Western philosophy as well.

[Ernie Nemeth]

Kirkegaard may have started the existential movement but it lead to a dead end in philosophical terms, that for a hundred years retarded the reach of philosophy in the Western World.

It was the Dadaists and culminating in Descarte and his Phenomenology that many believe began the modern empirical movement of what has become the technological era. There was no need to understand the workings of the universe, they claimed, we only need to catalogue and name those things that are real. What was real was the crux. And if it weren't for Bohr and his outlandish claims the Dadaists may have fully won the day.

But because what is real was in question and could not be reconciled, there have been from that time onward two houses of thought and diverging methods to achieve their goals.


To analyze the topic from the perspective of foreground/background is to delve into the realm of modes of control. Although I understand that that is not your intent, foreground is the focus and the background is those things, those forces, that are responsible for that presentation. And it is in this manner that humanity has been dragged down into the abyss of unwitting ignorance. What is in front of an individual keeps their attention riveted. With their rapt focus on the immediate they have no concern or even a clue that there are powers behind their plight intent on keeping humanity's attention on survival, for instance.

But from a philosophical point of view, the foreground could be the so-called objects, while the background is the actual reality that manifests as solid objects to those that are immersed within the illusion of solidity. But the one thing in this universe that we can all agree on is that everything is in flux and so there is no unchanging state.

If there is no unchanging state then there cannot be a transition to another state either, since the new state will also change. And if there is no transition there is no time. So in the context of foreground/background, the entire universe is a thought with no substance at all.

[TraineeHuman]

Well, some foregrounds and backgrounds are more real, and they're the ones we should give nearly all our attention to. The Zen master Dogen is very famous for having pointed out that you are altogether the same thing as your time. In other words, if you like, "your" time is always your true foreground, because it is simply you. This cuts beyond even making an effort, forming a concept about it or even looking at what you are. (How can, say, water see itself as separate within nothing but water?) And the background to that just means that you need to be unselfish and realize at an ultimate level there's no full separation from other people and lifeforms either.

[Ernie Nemeth]

We could agree and end the discussion. I prefer the discussion.

The progress made in the scientific description and modelling of reality, at least on macroscopic terms has led to many advancements and inventions that have, in recent generations especially, caused the general public to trust the experts in their respective fields. Science has become the religion of the secular world.

With the upper hand in terms of credibility and success, and the vast wealth that goes along with the prestige, it is the alternative that must be reconciled with science, not the other way around, which would make it far easier to accomplish a revolution in thought.

The principle of cause and effect is more attractive than the law of Karma, for example, and so the schools disregard the connection entirely. If the student is relying on their educator to teach, that student will acquire an unnoticed bias as a result.

As that student progresses through the curriculum an accumulation of bias occurs that cements that scholar's viewpoint forevermore.

To deconstruct that student's incorrect assumptions they must be taken back step by step to the point where the error originated, and then led step by step through a new assimilation of assumptions and conclusions based on the corrected information.

In a way, it boils down to the relationship between teacher and student. Although there are many interesting avenues to explore in that regard there is a more basic level, from which the teacher/student relationship evolved.

The juxtaposition of Me and You...and the mystery of Us. This is where it started.


Perhaps we have been taught the wrong curriculum by the wrong teachers.
Worse, maybe there are conflicting curriculums, being taught by teachers with conflicting goals.

In either case, learning cannot be accomplished if the curriculum being taught is conflicting.

[TraineeHuman]

I should explain what I mean by a philosophy. A philosophy is a particular systematic way of viewing and explaining and interpreting reality, and the whole world. Usually, a religion involves adopting a certain philosophy as "the truth" or, at least, as what you consider the best explanation available.

In comparative philosophy, the aim is always to be aware of both the strengths and the weaknesses of at least two different philosophies. And that includes the weaknesses of the particular one that you favour and the areas of comparatively greater strength of the other philosophies.

I guess a preference to believe in science is known as "scientism". Probably the best description of the philosophy involved is Wittgenstein's early work, his Tractatus Logicophilosophicus.

I would certainly very much question whether we live in a time when sciientism is the more esteemed or prestigious religion / philosophy. When Neil Armstrong stepped out onto the moon, it was a small step for one "man", and a big step forward for "humanity". That certainly sounds to me like humanism. The clever scientists and engineers were fellow humans, and that was the thing that mattered. The inventors of Microsoft and Google and Youtube etc may have made gigantic profits, but that was primarily because they were enhancing.our access to greater information about or from humans.

Another major "-ism" that some thinkers argue is still extremely influential in our time, and also preferred over science and scientism, is romanticism. Movies, videos, stories, even games, and fun, and pleasure.

[Pam]

The first fifty or so lessons in ACIM are all about unseeing the 'things' around me. Basically they are all set up as negation, 'Nothing I see means anything', is the very first lesson. So yes, I've done a whole lot of that. It is very disturbing to meditate on the above, for example, because it refutes everything I think I believe. Fifty days straight of it can make one go bonkers. And then the lessons just get more and more difficult.

These days I am keenly focused on the subtle manipulation by unseen forces, and wondering if they are real or if I am the cause. I suspect I am the cause, but often it is impossible to believe I would do what happens to myself.

That and the usual assortment of critters constantly underfoot are my concern at this time. The Archons, or bugs, or lesser demons, or whatever one wishes to call them. I do not communicate directly with them, not even sure if they are sentient.

They are all that's left these days with any interest in me it seems. There's no more communiques from the good side. Of course I did tell them to back off, as I did not trust they had my best interest at heart. I insist now on direct contact with the godhead, which doesn't happen often - only when I need it most.

I don't expect to see through the veil this time around. Not interested. I figure I purposely had my memory erased for some reason I thought was important when I had all my faculties. Why in the world would I second guess myself in this limited state I find myself in? It seems counter-productive.

If I'm in the mood, and if I peer just slightly out of focus, I can see through the illusion. I am almost convinced of the fact this world is an illusion of my own demented imagination. There is nothing in this world that is the way I believe it to be, and so there is really no reason to get all worked up about it. And nothing in this world has value beyond the value I place on it. By itself it is not even there.

I know what I should do, what I am called to do. But it pisses me off that it has come to this. I never expected such a drastic course change/correction to be required of an earnest seeker. I thought it would turn out different. I am grateful for this life and for being allowed to play my own game. I really don't want to play another's, even if that game is the real 'thing'. When I'm dead will be soon enough for me.

So I am allowed to wander aimlessly through this world, with one foot in and one foot out of the real world. Honestly, it's a nuisance.

But like they say, once you walk through the door, there's no going back.
You can't unlearn what has been taught in truth.

This post holds such profound truth for me. I live alone and have essentially become a hermit due to current circumstances. It allows me to see the power that thoughts have to create a reality. I spent so much of my life with no awareness of this at all. I would only catch it later on if it was so unusual that I had the see the power of thoughts. Now with way fewer distractions and diversions I can see the power thought to create reality. I am also noticing a quickening of the cause-effect relationship.

In regards to the archons or a new name I have read for them from I believe the Zoroastrian cosmology, the asuras. The critters have so many names, they are tied very closely to the human experience. In my isolation state I absolutely see how they will attack if I allow myself to enter a frequency that they can operate out of. I know this sounds crazy but they seem to be more desperate, more cruel like they have amped up their destructive tendencies. I don't know if it is a single entity or if there are more but they really seem determined to cause me as much harm as possible when I allow myself to indulge certain frequencies. There was a time where I would never admit this to anyone, I don't like to appear to be a nutcase, but I am beyond that now, they have the power to effect the physical realm, or so it appears to me. Maybe I am creating all of this, I don't know exactly how it works. I do now understand that it is so important to monitor my thoughts and pull out when I am going in direction that allows them to interact with me.

My reality has been so challenged as I spend time observing this reality that I can't help but believe that this is a simulation. It would answer so many questions. I do shake my head and think how on earth did this time line change so dramatically in 2 years?
How do prophecies work? I could fill a page with questions I have that don't make sense with what I have been programmed to believe.

Well, I could go on and on. Just wanted to let you know, Ernie, that I so much understand what you have to say, and I appreciate it. I do constantly question bizarre observations and events that happen to me and in the world and I know you are as sane as it gets so I have a bit more confidence that this strange reality is really occurring, how ever that works. Maybe we have progressed to a very high level in a simulation?? Just a thought. Anyway, thank you so much for all your contributions to forum, you are deeply appreciated.

[Ernie Nemeth]

Philosophy is the only discipline I know of that apart from the requisite of possessing a large volume of data and facts about almost everything, almost anyone can participate on an equal footing. The past philosophies matter not a whit because all humans think the same basic thoughts. There is a reason for this I touched on here and there in this thread that is not the issue here.

So although, for instance, the span from Kant to Kierkegaard to Sartre was two centuries, the thought train is a continuation of the same idea. All that left the discussion was god, who became existential.

Much as my own thoughts had to veer away from god in order to love god more fully. In order to get to the meat of the issue I had to first divest myself of my childhood training. That was not easy at all, and very scary. It is not fun to tear oneself away from familiar institutions without feeling, well, guilty and wrong.

So many years of wandering in the desert, resisting temptation, and staying true to the search. Not easy at all.

Buddhism came to the rescue in my forties, actually exactly on my fortieth birthday. But that is partly an experiential philosophy and I was not yet ready for that. But I began my yoga training that same week and it would not be long before that discipline would completely overwhelm me and sweep me away.

Then came the Course In Miracles and I was hooked. It would take years to realize what had happened. By that time I had rejected this world entirely, both the good and the bad. There were only a few things I could not reject, like my daughter, my wife, the innocent, god.

And yet all must be rejected to cross the bridge of perception to the real world. It was too difficult for me, too alien to my sensibilities. And so, since I couldn't meet the requirements, I was rejected.

Philosophy is very personal to me. It is not something I pick up and put down as the whim hits me. I live it and breath it and cannot live without it. It is always foremost in my mind.

I compared philosophies when I was young. The time for comparisons is long over. From what I have found, there are very few, if any, comprehensive philosophies that encompass all the facts at our disposal. Some get bogged down in minutia, some get lost in the translation, others never had the legs to make it to the finish line.

The only living philosophies with a chance are those that steer us in the right direction. So far, our philosophies have not been up to the challenge. And perhaps people are not yet ready because they are still enamoured by materialism and wealth. These are the guiding principles of our modern lives and they happen to fit with the religion of the day: scientism.

So long as belief trumps truth, religion will top spirituality. Religion begets dogma. Dogma begets tyranny.

Spirituality begets freedom. Therefore, spirituality cannot be embraced until freedom is the goal.

So maybe we should discuss freedom as a philosophical tenet, and its significance?

[TraineeHuman]

Your words seem to me to convey deep pain, among other things, Ernie. But also that you're not running away from it.

There really is a point one can get to where suffering loses its power to "stab" you in any deep way anymore -- or, at worst, only for a moment or so. You still get all sorts of things wrong in big ways, but it no longer matters all that much. My understanding is that this was a very major thing that Krishnamurti and the Buddha and Barry Long and many others were trying to tell people. Not as a theory or a philosophy, but as a reality of their direct experience. I take it this is also what ACIM means by saying that in reality, at a deep enough level, we're already literally in "heaven", and that eventually (in some future, perhaps?) we'll all wake up to that fact.

Until then, you do whatever you do, and every moment you continue to stay honest with yourself about yourself.

[mozo33]

Your words seem to me to convey deep pain, among other things, Ernie. But also that you're not running away from it.

There really is a point one can get to where suffering loses its power to "stab" you in any deep way anymore -- or, at worst, only for a moment or so. You still get all sorts of things wrong in big ways, but it no longer matters all that much. My understanding is that this was a very major thing that Krishnamurti and the Buddha and Barry Long and many others were trying to tell people. Not as a theory or a philosophy, but as a reality of their direct experience. I take it this is also what ACIM means by saying that in reality, at a deep enough level, we're already literally in "heaven", and that eventually (in some future, perhaps?) we'll all wake up to that fact.

Until then, you do whatever you do, and every moment you continue to stay honest with yourself about yourself.

"we're already literally in "heaven", and that eventually (in some future, perhaps?) we'll all wake up to that fact."

Jesus entered into this Truth by remaining in it ....

[Ernie Nemeth]

Thanks TH.

My underlying problem is this: I spent my entire life delving into philosophical ideation, I did not ever imagine a philosophy could be and must be lived. And since I had been trained almost completely wrong, I had to unlearn much of what I had thought I'd already learned, just to participate.

The question is: How can I overcome my early training, without risking an entire psychological breakdown? That is the minefield I walk through daily.

So I live two different lives. In the one I am a zombie going through the motions of life, unmoved and uninterested. In the other I am in tune waiting for guidance. If I am called I heed the call. I do the work I am directed to do, no less and no more. (I often wonder, who are these souls I am called on to minister to, that they can receive healing from an unhealed healer?)

I no longer ask for or expect anything for myself.

My goal was to find the truth. I never expected to have to live it.

[mozo33]

If a blind man leads a blind man, both will fall into a pit.”

[Delight]

Philosophy is nice and all but I feel like it has lost all ability to aid me. Words and words and words... This video speaks to me

YZxSQSjadHc

[TraineeHuman]

Joshi was one of the most famous and highly regarded of the Zen masters. According to him, the insight, the light, that any one of us can gain from any great being's or ideology's words will altogether depend on the profundity and the purity and the breadth of our own quest. We all need to ask (at least ourselves) the deepest questions. And indulge our consciousness to be in love with and somehow always in touch with the deepest depths, that are always present with us, for those with eyes to see and with their higher "feelings" open. That is what true philosophy is the love of, regardless of East and West.

Whenever we do choose to keep within the realm of the sayable, we need to ask the biggest and most far-reaching questions regarding the truth of the world around us and what possibilities are coming in over its horizons, at various different levels. That involves the use of certain philosophical skills, such as conceptual analysis, but also keeping our consciousness whole, and constantly looking rather than just thinking. We only learn to do this by starting from what is near and familiar, but then, while remaining pure, by expanding, both inwardly and in our outward discernment and perception. Philosophy shouldn't be focused on the meanings of words, but on the beauty and impact of the most profound or true expressions of meaning in itself.

[kfm27917]

have U read Breaking The Habit of Being Yourself How to Lose Your Mind and Create a New One by Joe Dispenza Dr.
https://book4you.org/book/2285192/b79a58 ?

[TraineeHuman]

That sounds like it's a book about how one might reprogram one's own mind/personality/self-concept/etc. Psychology
originated in Eastern cultures quite a few centuries ago, and didn't officially begin in its more modern form in
the West until the late nineteenth century with William James and the twentieth century with Freud. Freud got the
whole notion of the "unconscious" or the "subconscious", among other things, from ancient Eastern writings.

The branch of modern psychology into which the ideas and methods of the book you refer to would fall is known as
cognitive-behavioral therapy. However, in this age of AIs and robotization, are you sure you really want to make
yourself in a certain sense substantially more like an AI? Similar psychotherapeutic approaches to this were indeed
invented in ancient Eastern psychology, but over time the orientation of the Eastern methods became more and more
transpersonal and humanistic and existential.

One thing about the Eastern approaches that blew me away was the way the psychological concepts were formulated so
that they dovetail perfectly with the metaphysical (the spiritual) concepts, and also with the concepts relating to
spiritual practice, both in the monastery and in real life.

Another mind-blowing fact, I believe, is that Japan never had any insane asylums or similar institutions until the
early 1980s. Instead, they relied on the Zen monasteries. And this was because apparently the Zen masters
were masters at improving the mental health of what in the West used to be called "insane" people (but today,
thank goodness, is known as people with a mood disorder).

The Zen masters were also famous for achieving extraordinary therapeutic breakthroughs with such individuals.