Naturalistic philosophy denies life?

Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment.

Re: Naturalistic philosophy denies life?

Postby Carl G » Tue Nov 13, 2007 11:28 am

dayblogger wrote:Primate field studies show that it is the alpha males who do all the raping, kidnapping, murder, and are in front, going toe to toe to defend the tribal resources.

Primates actually gave us our Primary system of choosing Presidential candidates. And George Bush is actually descended from monkeys. The Monkees were one of the first corporate created music groups. It comes full circle.

They sire alpha daughters who inherit much of the drive, but are also the females who abuse and abandon the young. It is the betas, both male and female, that adopt the young. A tribe which does not have enuf betas does not have enuf young survive when the current generation of alphas gets to old to do battle.

Rich people were called "sire" by common folk during the Middle Ages, for obvious reasons. In more modern times their daughters like to drive Alpha Romeros, because fancy Italian sports cars go vrroom vrroom. The word "vroom" comes from the beta Gaul king, Vercingetorix, who was always 'on the go,' until his defeat by Caesar at the Battle of Alesia. Ironically the Caesar salad, named for the victorious future Emperor, is also much loved by Alpha daughters. Go figger.

The tribe that dont have enuf alphas has its females kidnapped. But the tribe that has too many has civil war with different sets of alphas struggling for dominance. Too many chiefs, not enuf Indians. Alphas have higher adrenalin (which speeds reflexes) and lower seratonin (which sharpens senses). The DNA markers associated with these emotionally powerful hormones are handed down on the Y Chromosome. "He's just like his father." is true 80% of the time.

The Ralpha Indians of Northwestern Bolweevilia in South America have quite a way with the punji stake, sharpened to a T, smeared with dung, and handed down father to son. Ralpha males struggle with Beta females, and from this came the world's first reality show, in 1868. It was called "Just Like His Father," and was broadcast through the jungle via special blowhorns.

Hominids of course, range more widely from alpha to beta in different situations, and are affected by emotionally traumatic events more powerfully. An alpha who looses his mother at a critical point often turns beta. An alpha that enters a new school and gets the shit kicked out of him by a more proficient alpha also has an attitude adjustment, and likewise, the schools that still use the paddle have changed alphas into betas so regularly that the violence rates drop to zero. I see this in rural areas where boys still know where the back of the woodshed is.

The alphalfa male, on the other hand, is just a rural hick, who thrives on getting the shit kicked out of him. He's high protein, higher than those flatlander corn-fed pig-boys could ever imagine. Jealousy is a bitch. The alphalfa male may not wear the latest fashions, but often his face smarts.

Conversely, 'power corrupts'. And power really is an aphrodisiac; which I expect will be shown to work with women as they move up in the power structures. We see in history how often powerful women used sexual services to advance their agendas, without considering that they had already advanced their agendas, and now exercised the prerogative of power in ignoring sexual conventions. And of course, the more alpha females are more lusty to start with.

Alphadisiacs are what juice up the adrenals and get the seratonin surfin.' I really don't know what this actually has to do with the thread subject, "Naturalistic philosophy denies life," but whenever I have time, I like to blog some history and sociology onto whatever thread I open. What the heck, I'm sipping my rum.

There have always been two ways to control the behavior of men. Sex or violence. Pick one. History, which after all was recorded by scribes in the pay of the warrior class, shows us how violence has been repeatedly used. We also see how the weapons were constantly improved at the behest of the warrior class. But this has backfired. It was really important at one time to have the brave heart, strong right arm, sword in hand. The alphas can hack a man down, and as Greek & Roman reports say, return from battle spattered with the blood of their enemies.

I really wonder about some of the most vaunted Generals of history, were they really that great. Take Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson. An able corps commander in the confines of his beloved Shenandoah Valley, and certainly worth immortalizing for his brilliant end march at Chancellorsville, but look at his lethargic performance at Seven Days, and average on at Fredericksburg. Same can be said of Rommel, a masterful tactician who didn't know how to follow orders, or to stop in any sort of prudent manner in North Africa.

Betas cant really handle the gore very well. But now, with assault rifles, smart bombs, and even nukes, the warriors could even wear white gloves, and as we see now in the Mid East, even be female. And in fact, the organization needed to fulfill modern battle plans is improved by the superior ability of women to cooperate rather than compete for status.

Disagree. Betas can and do handle Gore because Al Gore is a beta himself.

Violence no longer works for the alpha male warrior class. In fact, its become increasingly obvious to everyone else that they cannot even control themselves, much less a whole nation. Which is empowering women, and doing so at an accellerating rate. And reflective of the powers of women we are seeing the emergence of sex to control the behavior of men. Men are eager to buy that which they can no longer steal.

Yes, the warrior class of '07, for instance, graduated with over 80% saying they did not like violin music. I for one say it's about time. I hate those squeaky instruments. I will bet you it is betas, namely gays and virgins only for whom a preponderance find solace in those wretched cat gut strings.

This is a huge attitude adjustment for both men and women. Gibbon noted that while the maintenance of moral values is essential to maintain a republic, every effort to restore them once lost, has been a failure. And indeed, the moral values are lost. And we no longer have the kind of republic the Founding Farmers established. Get over it.

Gibbons have noted, through their amazing body language. that bananas are one of Nature's perfect foods, and we all just have to get usta it. There, my friends, is your dammed Naturalistic Philosophy!
Good Citizen Carl
User avatar
Carl G
 
Posts: 2700
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2006 12:52 pm
Location: Arizona

Re: Naturalistic philosophy denies life?

Postby daybrown » Tue Nov 13, 2007 11:36 am

<That's definitely one of the charms of woman, and also one of her greatest dangers. She can boost the male ego to such an extent that he can begin to believe in his own fantasies about himself. She can make even the wimpiest of fellows feel like he is a great hero.>
Part of the problem is that these ancient "value equations" (as Nietzsche called them), are finally changing (as he hoped), and that what it is to be male or female is so much more diverse and ambiguous than when limited by Christian dogma.

the Boomers remember when all the male voices on the TV were authoratative, telling women what to buy, and they see how all the men in the commercials and sitcoms now are fools. Bill Cosby was the last male father figure I can recall on the TV that had any sense.

Sure, she can still boost the male ego, but now- why should she bother? Young women now make more money than young men. It usta be that young women stayed home with parents til they got married, but now its young men, and they dont have any plans for marriage. They cant afford to support a family, and they know that.

There is a certain degree of denial of the shift of the zeitgeist seen in this thread where one set of postings have the traditional value equations in mind, while another set is looking into the fog of the future trying to see the parameters of the new roles.
Goddess made sex for company.
User avatar
daybrown
 
Posts: 708
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2007 4:00 pm
Location: SE Ozarks

Re: Naturalistic philosophy denies life?

Postby Carl G » Tue Nov 13, 2007 11:47 am

daybrown wrote:the Boomers remember when all the male voices on the TV were authoratative, telling women what to buy, and they see how all the men in the commercials and sitcoms now are fools. Bill Cosby was the last male father figure I can recall on the TV that had any sense.

Sure, she can still boost the male ego, but now- why should she bother? Young women now make more money than young men. It usta be that young women stayed home with parents til they got married, but now its young men, and they dont have any plans for marriage. They cant afford to support a family, and they know that.

The Boomer generation has given way to the Bloomer generation; it's the women who wear the pants now, and the men are all little boys in short pants -- or diapers. Women are the breadwinners now, and men play in the nursery, or go to nursery school -- to learn about plants. Not many farmers left, and not many good nurserymen either. It's all gone to corporate genetic breeding, of plants, of men. Women run the world, and men play in their playpens and wet their pants and cry and stuff. There's your damned Naturalistic Philosophy!
Good Citizen Carl
User avatar
Carl G
 
Posts: 2700
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2006 12:52 pm
Location: Arizona

Re: Naturalistic philosophy denies life?

Postby Kelly Jones » Tue Nov 13, 2007 1:20 pm

Alex wrote:

thinking is a very exalted activity, the defining human feature. But in the face of the experience of creation, and in those moments of revelation that provide insight into the nature of things, I think it is more than just analytical, dry thinking that is required.


And you know that - how?

It's interesting that so many people believe analytical, logical thinking is dry, unsatisfying, and ultimately not the tool that brings wisdom. You're not the first to believe this.

But I'll tell you a "secret". It takes time to drop the emotional set of toys for the rational set of toys. One needs to let oneself open-up to reasoning as one does this. Experience the consolations to be found in the new toys. Gradually, the addiction for emotional toys, and the boredom of not having those toys around, will fade in time.

Because really, the analytical mind is highly enjoyable. It opens up the mind with an undying interest in everything, so every experience is sharp and clear. One's typical mood is light because of lack of emotion: as light on the water as a boat without an anchor. One can analyise anything without pain or suffering.

An analysis of hate shows that it is delusional (since all is Nature). With no hate to forcibly eject thoughts off-track, the mind works smoothly and continuously. Memory is excellent. An analysis of love works in the same way. Without love, one can smoothly travel any line of thought wherever the whim whims. Life is an open-book.

It isn't dry, but rich and satisfying - to me. And better yet, it is all that is required to reveal the ever-present nature of Reality in all its glory.




Kelly
User avatar
Kelly Jones
 
Posts: 2179
Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2006 3:51 pm
Location: Australia

Re: Naturalistic philosophy denies life?

Postby Kelly Jones » Tue Nov 13, 2007 2:19 pm

daybrown wrote:Sure, she can still boost the male ego, but now- why should she bother?


To avoid being alone.


Kelly
User avatar
Kelly Jones
 
Posts: 2179
Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2006 3:51 pm
Location: Australia

Re: Naturalistic philosophy denies life?

Postby daybrown » Tue Nov 13, 2007 4:16 pm

Kelly Jones wrote:
daybrown wrote:Sure, she can still boost the male ego, but now- why should she bother?

To avoid being alone.

Some of my friends are dykes who solved that problem another way. Some are fag hags. I read there are some who have 'virtual' relationships online, reportedly with attractive men, but reportedly also deceived in that.

Hominid evolution shows women living in harems, villages, & communal houses in daily constant contact with other women and their kids. And even in the original yeoman farmer nuclear family household, it soon filled up with her own kids. Women rarely got to live alone with just a husband.

And even a couple generations ago, when this was common in American life, if you go back and read the women's magazines, they were not very satisfied with it. And 100 years ago, the advice related to the duty of a wife to satisfy the lust of a husband even tho they were not really into it. Ibson's "The Dollhouse" was a huge hit, Tolstoy's "Anna Karenina" also, depicting the dissatisfaction women felt in what we call monogamy.

A lot of both men and women are too neurotic to really be happy no matter what they do or have. That did not seem to be necessary to stay in the gene pool. I know some more mature women that are discussing and experimenting with other social models aimed more at using men for what they may be good for, but not expecting them to meet needs beyond their capabilities.

Monogamy was a simple model, but moving beyond that opens up a universe of ambiguity in the nature of possible relationships, that presents more challenges to come to terms with.
Goddess made sex for company.
User avatar
daybrown
 
Posts: 708
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2007 4:00 pm
Location: SE Ozarks

Re: Naturalistic philosophy denies life?

Postby Laird » Tue Nov 13, 2007 4:29 pm

Kelly Jones wrote:Perhaps you're unhappy because you believe I'm more a woman than a man.


Erm, yeah. What can I say. I'll get back to you after you show me your donger.

What's with this ascribing of emotional states to me anyway? In this post of yours I'm "unhappy"; in a previous post of yours I was "upset" that my "needs" weren't being supported or affirmed; in yet another previous post my own posts were tantamount to "a tantrum or the like". Rest assured, Kelly, that my keel is pretty even right now. I'm sure that you'd like it if I actually did react very emotionally because it would help you to argue that emotions are undesirable, but I know that you can't point to anywhere where I've done that. Any "upset" that I experience is simply a gentle reminder of what I believe in.

Laird: Why are you posting to this forum if not that you care? And what is care but a feeling?

Kelly: I post to the forum to correct mistakes.


Right, because you care about having mistakes corrected.

Laird: See, you can't get away from the fact that human beings are in a constant state of feeling.

Kelly: Most people are not rational.


Most people recognise that feeling and reason operate in harmony.

Laird: It's incontrovertible that to be conscious is to be in some sort of mood, whether that mood be serious, frivolous, contemplative, happy, sad, frustrated or something else. And what are moods but manifestations/sources of feelings?

Kelly: This reminds me of the quip by Dave Sims


That quote had little to do with the point that I was making - the quote was a denigration of women based on the claim that they argue from emotion rather than from reason. My point is simply that to be conscious is to be in a mood i.e. to feel.

Laird: And let's consider this supposed dichotomy that you and QRS propose between reason and emotion. How do you know when you are right? It's because you feel certain, isn't it?

Kelly: No, it might arise if one has an attachment to finding certainty in reason.


(I take it that the "it" in that sentence denotes "the feeling of certainty", but I found that sentence a little confusing so please clarify if that's not what you intended)

You missed the point. Your sentence implies a distinction between "certainty" and "the feeling of certainty" in the mind. There is no such distinction: certainty is a feeling. And if anyone has the attachment of which you speak, it is you as a disciple of QRS.

Laird: I prefer to think of it as refusing to deny what I recognise through thirty years of life amongst other people (well, not all of those years were amongst other people but close enough to it) as being common to all of us.

Kelly: Well, it'd be honest if you could admit to yourself that there might possibly be exceptions. Nothing major, Laird.


I admit that there are people with blunted affect, and that I have been one of them at various times in my past. This is a dulling of overt emotional response, however it is in itself a feeling: a feeling of numbness. You seem to have missed my primary argument, which is that to be conscious is to feel. There can't be an exception to this unless you totally redefine the word "feeling".
User avatar
Laird
 
Posts: 954
Joined: Tue Apr 24, 2007 1:22 am
Location: Tasmania

Re: Gold diggers

Postby Laird » Tue Nov 13, 2007 5:12 pm

David Quinn wrote:That you regard the absolutes presented as "arbitrary" means that you don't see the logical connection between them, nor the underlying basis of it all. At best, all you see is the outer shell, the words (which you can't connect together). This does not constitute an understanding.


I see your framework and I understand how you intend it all to fit together and it is still arbitrary and based on what you would like to think rather than what is necessarily, provably true, because as far as I can see there is no such thing as an ultimate proof: all proofs are contingent.

DQ: Our openness to truth is also endless.

Laird: Those phenomena that you deny and that I listed are a part of truth. Your denial of them proves that your openness to truth is far from endless.

DQ: This depends on what is meant by "truth". What do you mean by it?

Laird: In this context by "truth" I mean that which has meaning in life.

DQ: I'm not sure that I can think of a more meaningless definition of truth.


Granted, I didn't phrase it particularly well. What I intended was that by "truth" in this context I mean typical (as in dictionary-definition) truths that are also those most significant and meaningful in life.

Laird: Any thinking person who sees you make the claim that logic on its own and independently of empiricism can prove anything ultimately and absolutely will likewise recognise this.

David: How would you know that?

Laird: Because of the nature of logic. Logic is a system of transformation that works upon information. What you get out is only as good as what you put in. You, however, seem to be denying that what you are putting in comes from empirical observation.

David: I could say that each of your terms above, such as "logic", "empiricial observation", "system", "information", etc, aren't empirically observable things - indeed, they are logical categories - and yet you've some how managed to use them to reach a conclusion that you think is meaningful.


The sense in which those terms come from empirical observation is that the meaning that they hold is learnt by each individual who uses them by observing the way in which other people use them.

And I'm not claiming that my conclusions are absolutely proven truths, just that they seem sound to me.

David Quinn wrote:But to say that would mean making an appeal to your intellectual integrity, which you don't have.


Care to justify that libellous remark?

Laird: What you guys really do is construct models that are logically consistent, but there's a difference between "logically consistent" and "true".

David: What if a person considers logical consistency meaningful?


Care to address the substance of my point, rather than to merely wedge in a jab at my poorly phrased definition of "truth"?

Laird: I am presently engaged in a passionate, intimate (and I mean that in every sense of the word, not just the physical...erm, virtual...well, you know what I mean) internet relationship with a wonderful, intelligent and insightful woman and it is very satisfying to both of us. It gives me confidence that what I write on this forum is not merely wishful thinking.

David: That's definitely one of the charms of woman, and also one of her greatest dangers. She can boost the male ego to such an extent that he can begin to believe in his own fantasies about himself. She can make even the wimpiest of fellows feel like he is a great hero.


Or she can give you a new perspective on who you are, help you to recognise your own character - warts and all - and help you to grow through barriers.
User avatar
Laird
 
Posts: 954
Joined: Tue Apr 24, 2007 1:22 am
Location: Tasmania

Re: Naturalistic philosophy denies life?

Postby Kelly Jones » Tue Nov 13, 2007 6:04 pm

daybrown wrote:Sure, she can still boost the male ego, but now- why should she bother?

KJ: To avoid being alone.

DB: Some of my friends are dykes who solved that problem another way. Some are fag hags. I read there are some who have 'virtual' relationships online, reportedly with attractive men, but reportedly also deceived in that.

They didn't solve it because they jumped into relationships!

[cut]
Last edited by Kelly Jones on Tue Nov 13, 2007 8:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Kelly Jones
 
Posts: 2179
Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2006 3:51 pm
Location: Australia

Re: Naturalistic philosophy denies life?

Postby Kelly Jones » Tue Nov 13, 2007 6:20 pm

Laird,

By "feeling" do you mean "emotion", or, "reasoned thought"?


My point is simply that to be conscious is to be in a mood i.e. to feel.


I know I am conscious. I am certain because of my definition of consciousness: something is appearing. I apply it, see that there is something, and conclude it is true. This definition does not require emotions, just "something".

Laird: And let's consider this supposed dichotomy that you and QRS propose between reason and emotion. How do you know when you are right? It's because you feel certain, isn't it?

Kelly: No, it might arise if one has an attachment to finding certainty in reason.

Laird: Your sentence implies a distinction between "certainty" and "the feeling of certainty" in the mind. There is no such distinction: certainty is a feeling.


I recognise A=A is true because I reason that A is A and not other than A. I experience a double-checking process, where I recognise that any not-A is not (and therefore never) A. I am absolutely certain because I have made a watertight definition.

Again, this definition, and this reasoning process, don't require emotions for validation.

In fact, physical sensations related to psychological activity (what I call emotions) only ever arise for me when my reasoning is foolish. Namely, resting on egotism.



Kelly

[cleaned up]
User avatar
Kelly Jones
 
Posts: 2179
Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2006 3:51 pm
Location: Australia

Re: Naturalistic philosophy denies life?

Postby Alex Jacob » Tue Nov 13, 2007 11:32 pm

Kelly,

You are setting up reason and emotion in a false opposition. The reasons are obvious, and hinge in your world-view, your psychology, and the ethics that spin out of these decisions, choices, selections. Again, you speak from your given 'personality type', and it makes all the sense in the world to you of course, and appears like the best choice for all people, at all times. As I said, if this works for you who can argue? But, to be clear, I am not talking about one or the other, and I am not necessarily talking about emotionalism, in the lower, common, false and shifting sense that you seem to be. The experiences, the events, the revelations, the epiphanies, the intuitions and insights (I try a shotgun approach here, sensing that you will quibble over definitions), that I would say come as a result of 'contact with self', are events where reasoning and feeling are combined, in a 'holistic' way. It is not one or the other, but a union. That is all I am trying to say, it doesn't go much farther than that.

And yet, perhaps, the implications and the ramifications are farther reaching. It is more a question that a statement, and all the rest of this post is exploratory, probing:

I read opinions and ideas about life and so many aspects of life that seem decided from one pole of perception, one pole within a range of possible poles within human possibilities. Those selections---your selections---seem lopsided and harsh, and tinged with a mood of 'arrogance', and I really don't need for you to calmly and patiently explain the 'value' of these things as if you are holding class, or the choices you make, or the reasons why you do so, no part of this escapes me, I get it. (But I certainly see value in you clarifying whatever it is that you think, and in expressing it, just as we all do). To live in that way, your way, what seems to be your-plural way, would be a step down for me, a failure, a retreat, and not an advance, not an aid.

And as I have said on not a few ocassions, it seems to me that this stance, this decision, this selection of yours-plural, might have deleterious effects, if not now then in some future. But with these statements I am making judgments, and the truth is I cannot know what will be the effects of your thinking and acting, I don't know 'you', our paths will never cross. Yet, here we all are, discussing things because we like to do so, or we find some value in it. Concerning the issue of deleterious effects, it is my opinion that one should always hold oneself aloof from any platform of ideas being sold, especially when certain ideas and attitudes can have very profound effects on one's life. Many, many people have come forward over the last decades (the post-war era predominantly) with ideas and dogmas borne of interpretations of religious and spiritual documents, most of those coming from far-flung 'other' cultures. People get ahold of these ideas, or the ideas get ahold of them, and get captivated or 'possessed' by these ideas, and this 'possession' causes them to make all sorts of radical changes and to make radical choices in the way they live life. All this because of some ideas that came their way. Needless to say, so many of these ideas, in the vessels of the possessed individuals, have shipwrecked, have led to little or to nought, or to imbalance, neuroticism, disconnect, and so many different (undesirable?) states that could be named and discussed.

You do not fool me, Kelly. Neither you nor Dan nor David nor Kevin. I don't believe anyones rap, no matter in what colors it is painted, with whatever masterful (or dull) strokes, no matter how fascinating is the structure of the dogma or the elegance of the mathematical formulations. It is often just blather of some kids who really don't seem to understand life and have little experience in it, and who are selling snake oil and potions they don't understand, which may indeed do them a great deal of harm.

It is not impossible, and it has happened before, my dear...

Your tone and your air of superiority, as if you distribute crumbs of 'wisdom' to the sudras, are the main clue to me that you are off track. This is what happens in the beginning stages of mental illness: some whole part of the individual is shrowded over, covered in a veil, the person disappears, and one is left to talk with a shell, a mask, a false persona, often arrogant and unreachable, ensconced behind fabulous absolutes. I don't give a holy fuck about any of this crap you spout, the only thing that matters to me is you the person. But that person will not appear here, and that is, in my opinion, part of the pathology of the possessive ideas you (plural?) present, the possessive ideas that hold you.

Some part of this analysis, of course, is like a shot in the dark: could be on the money, might well have missed the mark. It happens often in this internet environment. It is I guess a sort of rough-and-ready counter-argument to the 'Here, I throw a few crumbs in your direction, a tidbit', and takes the form of: 'Okay, nutcase!'

;-)
Last edited by Alex Jacob on Wed Nov 14, 2007 6:17 am, edited 1 time in total.
muero porque no muero
User avatar
Alex Jacob
 
Posts: 1214
Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2007 5:43 am

Re: Naturalistic philosophy denies life?

Postby daybrown » Wed Nov 14, 2007 4:19 am

Kelly Jones wrote:
daybrown wrote:Sure, she can still boost the male ego, but now- why should she bother?

KJ: To avoid being alone.

DB: Some of my friends are dykes who solved that problem another way. Some are fag hags. I read there are some who have 'virtual' relationships online, reportedly with attractive men, but reportedly also deceived in that.

They didn't solve it because they jumped into relationships!

I dont claim to know how they started a relationship with a woman, or gave up one with a man. I dont agree that most people balance reason and emotion very well. The reasoning process in terms of relationships is usually unbalanced, which is why they say people "fall in love".

Most of the reasoning people do is only at a very shallow superficial level. Their attention spans are too short to really think deeply about anything. Hominids evolved in small tribes that always had witches and shamen doing what we now call 'case management', and today they still assume there is someone watching out for their interests. Like Big Brother, and Ma Bell, both of whom have an interest in idealizing the romantic relationship in order to exploit the energy needed to create, maintain, and then destroy it to look for another more perfect mating.

Few men are intelligent and intuitive enuf to meet the emotional needs of a woman, so most women keep on trying to fix up the men they have to make them work properly, and keep failing at it because they really dont understand the limits of the male psyche most men run around with. Hominid evolution equipped them with the skills to survive in the bush alone, but to do that, diminished their intuitive sense of what others need. There wasnt anybody else there, and they needed all the gray matter they had used as effectively as possible for other purposes.
Goddess made sex for company.
User avatar
daybrown
 
Posts: 708
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2007 4:00 pm
Location: SE Ozarks

Re: Naturalistic philosophy denies life?

Postby Kelly Jones » Wed Nov 14, 2007 9:17 am

Alex wrote:thinking is a very exalted activity, the defining human feature. But in the face of the experience of creation, and in those moments of revelation that provide insight into the nature of things, I think it is more than just analytical, dry thinking that is required.

Kelly: And you know that - how?

Alex: The experiences, the events, the revelations, the epiphanies, the intuitions and insights (I try a shotgun approach here, sensing that you will quibble over definitions), that I would say come as a result of 'contact with self', are events where reasoning and feeling are combined, in a 'holistic' way. It is not one or the other, but a union. That is all I am trying to say, it doesn't go much farther than that.


So, what you're in fact relying on, to answer my question, is an experience.

I see that you're describing an experience after 'contact with self] as 'events where reasoning and feeling are combined'.

This means you haven't in fact made contact with the true self at all. This is why you disagree with me, I'd say. We're talking about two completely different meanings.

Is your "self" absolute for all things? Can you describe it please? For example, is it an "experience"?

I think it is quite possible to argue with "experience", unlike what Kevin stated in Peter Bowes' podcast thread. (Unless it is a particular kind of experience, namely, an explicitly rational one - understanding - in which case, it is still arguable). The reason is, in discovering what is ultimately and absolutely true, about Everything, we can't rely on empirical or experiential evidence. We have to rely on logic and logical definitions. Do you agree or not?


Kelly
User avatar
Kelly Jones
 
Posts: 2179
Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2006 3:51 pm
Location: Australia

Re: Naturalistic philosophy denies life?

Postby Kevin Solway » Wed Nov 14, 2007 9:27 am

Kelly Jones wrote:(To Laird) By "feeling" do you mean "emotion", or, "reasoned thought"?

The word "feeling" is used for a lot more things than just emotions. The word "feeling" is also used for physical sensations, like feeling hot, cold, tired, or hungry. And these things are not necessarily emotional. Also, one can be said to "feel" things intuitively, that are also not necessarily emotional.

The only type of feelings that are necessarily faulty are emotional feelings, since they can always be found to have egotistical, which is to say deluded, content.

But the deluded person tries to lump the emotional feelings in with all the others, since they don't want to consider that their emotional feelings are at fault.

I think it is quite possible to argue with "experience"

In the podcast I said that we can argue with a person's interpretation of their experience, but not the experience itself. For example, a person might experience that they are Napoleon, and there's nothing unusual about that as it is perfectly natural to dream. But when the person interprets this experience to be reality itself, and not just imagination, then we have something that can be disputed.
User avatar
Kevin Solway
 
Posts: 2677
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 8:43 am
Location: Australia

Re: Naturalistic philosophy denies life?

Postby Kelly Jones » Wed Nov 14, 2007 9:46 am

Kelly wrote:In fact, physical sensations related to psychological activity (what I call emotions) only ever arise for me when my reasoning is foolish. Namely, resting on egotism.

Kelly to Laird wrote:By "feeling" do you mean "emotions", or, "reasoned thoughts"?


Kevin wrote:The word "feeling" is used for a lot more things than just emotions. The word "feeling" is also used for physical sensations, like feeling hot, cold, tired, or hungry. And these things are not necessarily emotional. Also, one can be said to "feel" things intuitively, that are also not necessarily emotional.

Yes, I agree. But I covered this with the above definition: "physical sensations related to psychological activity". Though I should qualify that, because the psychological activity contributing to emotions is deluded psychological activity. There is such a thing as an enlightened psychology.

When one feels "hot" there is no psychological activity. But there is if one experiences "hot and bothered".

The emotional / deluded component is the psychological tag, like irritation, misery, agitation, joy, contentedness, and so forth.

In other words, the emotional component is the interpretation of the sensory experience.


Alex wrote:The experiences, the events, the revelations, the epiphanies, the intuitions and insights (I try a shotgun approach here, sensing that you will quibble over definitions), that I would say come as a result of 'contact with self', are events where reasoning and feeling are combined, in a 'holistic' way. It is not one or the other, but a union. That is all I am trying to say, it doesn't go much farther than that.

Kelly wrote:I think it is quite possible to argue with "experience"

Kevin wrote:In the podcast I said that we can argue with a person's interpretation of their experience, but not the experience itself. For example, a person might experience that they are Napoleon, and there's nothing unusual about that as it is perfectly natural to dream. But when the person interprets this experience to be reality itself, and not just imagination, then we have something that can be disputed.

What I'm sensing is, for Alex, "feeling" is emotional.

It's fine to call enlightened experiences a holistic combination of reason and feeling, where feeling is free of deluded psychological activity.

This is why I'd like him to explain what he means by "self". Then one can have a better chance of seeing why he interprets experiences of "contact with self" as justifying the "feelings" that come afterwards.


Kelly

[sp]
User avatar
Kelly Jones
 
Posts: 2179
Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2006 3:51 pm
Location: Australia

Re: Naturalistic philosophy denies life?

Postby Jamesh » Wed Nov 14, 2007 10:12 am

Kevin said
Also, one can be said to "feel" things intuitively, that are also not necessarily emotional.


I view emotions as anything that induces feelings, anything that has an effect on the bodies feedback to the brain, so I believe the passion of certainty is an emotion.

Mind you I guess I am twisting the general usage of the word, as most view emotions as those stronger more instinctual passions, in the same manner that I complain that you guys do with the word masculine.

As an aside I remain unconvinced that all emotions are activated directly from the brain. I think the brain might send instructions for some of the baser emotions to the heart, where there have been found to be a small number of cells similar to brain cells, and the heart acts as an amplifier that sends coding through the blood stream, which activates different bodily switches than that of the nervous system. In my mind the heart cells are kind of like BIOS memory, that can be reprogrammed bit by bit as circumstances change over the long term.

In an evolutionary sense this makes sense, as it allows the brain to be less tied up in the organisation of emotions and can concentrate a little better on what is taking place in the environment. I’m suggesting that instinct triggers reside more in the heart than the brain. I certainly could be wrong, it is speculation, but the science isn’t there yet to prove this either way imo.
Jamesh
 
Posts: 1392
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2005 3:44 pm

Re: Naturalistic philosophy denies life?

Postby Kelly Jones » Wed Nov 14, 2007 10:41 am

I think a few people have gotten hold of the wrong end of the stick.

I'm not advocating people suppress emotion. That would indeed be foolish.

Emotions are feelings that humans experience when their interpretation of the world is deluded. So emotions are symptoms of a false intellectual picture of things. Suppressing symptoms is, as we all know, short-sighted.

The remedy is to reason into a true picture of things. So, it is quite dangerous to "balance" emotions and reason. One has to give full rein to reason, to let it stretch out and race towards its goal.

Sure, being so rational will make one appear inhuman to others. But is the goal to be like everyone else, or to understand Truth for oneself ?


Kelly
User avatar
Kelly Jones
 
Posts: 2179
Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2006 3:51 pm
Location: Australia

Re: Naturalistic philosophy denies life?

Postby Alex Jacob » Wed Nov 14, 2007 10:52 am

The Australian Dharma Bummer wrote:

I see that you're describing an experience after 'contact with self] as 'events where reasoning and feeling are combined'.

This means you haven't in fact made contact with the true self at all. This is why you disagree with me, I'd say. We're talking about two completely different meanings.

Is your "self" absolute for all things? Can you describe it please? For example, is it an "experience"?


We have a saying in Spanish:

'Con plata baile el perro'...(Lit. 'with money dances the dog')

You could translate it a few different ways, like 'drop a coin and the dog will dance for you'...'you want the dog to dance? shell out the coins...or 'the dog will dance to the tinkle of rolling coins' (et cetera). The idea of course is that the dog, with great pains, has learned to dance, and will perform for you of course, but not for nothing. You've got to make it worth his while...

Some fool sets up a little linguistic game on a table, and expects you to play by rules of courtesy? But what if you just up-end the table?

"It's fine to call enlightened experiences a holistic combination of reason and feeling, where feeling is free of deluded psychological activity."

I am reminded of a style of communication of a not distant colleage: wrap up your 'enlightened experiences' free of 'deluded psychological activity', making sure there are a number of sharp edges to it, and put it where the sun don't shine, sister!

Juaaar juaaar huaaaar....you guys are no end of fun!

;-)
muero porque no muero
User avatar
Alex Jacob
 
Posts: 1214
Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2007 5:43 am

Re: Naturalistic philosophy denies life?

Postby Kevin Solway » Wed Nov 14, 2007 10:55 am

Jamesh wrote:I view emotions as anything that induces feelings, anything that has an effect on the bodies feedback to the brain, so I believe the passion of certainty is an emotion.

Let's say I "feel" hot after having walked into a sauna, but I'm not perturbed in any way by the heat - I don't feel either happy or upset about it, but I simply register the heat like a thermometer. Where is the "emotion" in that?

so I believe the passion of certainty is an emotion.

I would say the passion of certainty is an emotion too. "Emotional" in the sense of being based on a false conception of self, which is to say, enflamed by the winds of delusion.

Ideally "certainty" is something that should simply be registered in the manner of a scientific instrument, just like heat is measured by a thermometer.

As an aside I remain unconvinced that all emotions are activated directly from the brain. I think the brain might send instructions for some of the baser emotions to the heart, where there have been found to be a small number of cells similar to brain cells, and the heart acts as an amplifier that sends coding through the blood stream, which activates different bodily switches than that of the nervous system. In my mind the heart cells are kind of like BIOS memory, that can be reprogrammed bit by bit as circumstances change over the long term.

There are many causes of emotions (in the sense that I use the term). There are drugs you can give people that will make them more emotional.

But they always depend on there being the key element of an ego - ie, a misconception of the self. And without that factor of the ego, all the other causes of emotions will not be enough to generate an emotion.

Take pride for example. No matter what great things a person might achieve, and no matter what chemicals they are given, it will not generate pride unless there is an ego there to make it possible.
User avatar
Kevin Solway
 
Posts: 2677
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 8:43 am
Location: Australia

Re: Gold diggers

Postby David Quinn » Wed Nov 14, 2007 12:31 pm

Laird wrote:
David Quinn wrote:That you regard the absolutes presented as "arbitrary" means that you don't see the logical connection between them, nor the underlying basis of it all. At best, all you see is the outer shell, the words (which you can't connect together). This does not constitute an understanding.


I see your framework and I understand how you intend it all to fit together and it is still arbitrary and based on what you would like to think rather than what is necessarily, provably true, because as far as I can see there is no such thing as an ultimate proof: all proofs are contingent.

This doesn't mean that all proofs are equally invalid. A good proof is one that is contingent upon crystal-clear, wisely-chosen definitions.

You only see the outer frame, you don't see the Source. You don't see the way in which crystal-clear, wisely-chosen definitions can point the mind to the Source.


DQ: Our openness to truth is also endless.

Laird: Those phenomena that you deny and that I listed are a part of truth. Your denial of them proves that your openness to truth is far from endless.

DQ: This depends on what is meant by "truth". What do you mean by it?

Laird: In this context by "truth" I mean that which has meaning in life.

DQ: I'm not sure that I can think of a more meaningless definition of truth.

Laird: Granted, I didn't phrase it particularly well. What I intended was that by "truth" in this context I mean typical (as in dictionary-definition) truths that are also those most significant and meaningful in life.

As in genocide, racism, sexism, molestation, etc? These are all in the dictionary and many people find them very significant and meaningful in their lives.

So, sorry to say, your rewording is no better.


Laird: Any thinking person who sees you make the claim that logic on its own and independently of empiricism can prove anything ultimately and absolutely will likewise recognise this.

David: How would you know that?

Laird: Because of the nature of logic. Logic is a system of transformation that works upon information. What you get out is only as good as what you put in. You, however, seem to be denying that what you are putting in comes from empirical observation.

David: I could say that each of your terms above, such as "logic", "empiricial observation", "system", "information", etc, aren't empirically observable things - indeed, they are logical categories - and yet you've some how managed to use them to reach a conclusion that you think is meaningful.

Laird: The sense in which those terms come from empirical observation is that the meaning that they hold is learnt by each individual who uses them by observing the way in which other people use them.

If an individual is capable of thinking for himself, then he can fashion his own meanings for terms and can use logic to reach absolute truth for himself. He doesn't have to remain a slave to what others think.


And I'm not claiming that my conclusions are absolutely proven truths, just that they seem sound to me.

Well then, you are wasting my time, as well as everyone else's. If you don't know what is true, then on what basis can you judge the truth or otherwise of other people's views?

This relates to my point about your lack of intellectual integrity. You yourself have made no effort to realize the truth, and yet you see fit to pontificate willy-nilly about what is true and untrue.

Kevin once accused you of arrogance, and he was absolutely right.

-
User avatar
David Quinn
 
Posts: 4804
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia

Re: Naturalistic philosophy denies life?

Postby Kelly Jones » Wed Nov 14, 2007 2:02 pm

Yes, being an Australian dharma bum, I'm a simple sort. I like things simple and clear. Just can't be bothered chasing wild geese, or fancy ideas --- too much work, bro.

So, Alex, give it to me clear and simple..... Or are you afraid to expose your deepest truths to cold analysis?

I wrote:Is your "self" absolute for all things? Can you describe it please? For example, is it an "experience"?


You clearly baulked at this question.

Maybe you think it's dogmatic and restraining to use labels and words, but needn't be it so.


Kelly
User avatar
Kelly Jones
 
Posts: 2179
Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2006 3:51 pm
Location: Australia

Re: Naturalistic philosophy denies life?

Postby Kelly Jones » Wed Nov 14, 2007 2:11 pm

Kevin wrote:No matter what great things a person might achieve, it will not generate pride unless there is an ego there to make it possible.

Is this a contradiction in terms?
User avatar
Kelly Jones
 
Posts: 2179
Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2006 3:51 pm
Location: Australia

Re: Naturalistic philosophy denies life?

Postby daybrown » Wed Nov 14, 2007 2:43 pm

Kelly Jones wrote:
Kevin wrote:No matter what great things a person might achieve, it will not generate pride unless there is an ego there to make it possible.

Is this a contradiction in terms?

Ya, I wondered about that too. Did the Buddha take pride in what he'd done? Was pride necessary for him to do it? I thot his point was to negate the ego. But if so, then whose point was it?
Goddess made sex for company.
User avatar
daybrown
 
Posts: 708
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2007 4:00 pm
Location: SE Ozarks

Re: Gold diggers

Postby Laird » Wed Nov 14, 2007 4:26 pm

Laird: [A]s far as I can see there is no such thing as an ultimate proof: all proofs are contingent.

David: This doesn't mean that all proofs are equally invalid. A good proof is one that is contingent upon crystal-clear, wisely-chosen definitions. [...] If an individual is capable of thinking for himself, then he can fashion his own meanings for terms and can use logic to reach absolute truth for himself.


Definitions are simply components of a model. Clear and wisely-chosen definitions in turn sharpen the clarity and definition of the model itself, but clarity and high definition are no guarantee of truthfulness. A model has a relationship to reality. No matter that the definitions of which it is comprised are clear and wise ones, there remains the question of whether the relationship of that model as a whole to reality is a truthful one. Good definitions alone are no proof. In the end, all of the components of the model are based upon thinking through the consequences of observation, and the only way in which one can be convinced of the truthfulness of a model is by comparing it with reality, and - you guessed it - comparison depends upon observation. So in the end your claim to have transcended the need for empiricism is fallacious. The dishonesty of your approach is that whilst in the final analysis it depends upon empiricism, it nevertheless rejects the ultimate empirical methodology: the scientific approach. And be those things with which you are concerned beyond the scope of science?: then admit that what you have is imaginative conjecture and speculation and give up your foolish claims to have "logically proved" "absolute truth".

DQ: Our openness to truth is also endless.

Laird: Those phenomena that you deny and that I listed are a part of truth. Your denial of them proves that your openness to truth is far from endless.

DQ: This depends on what is meant by "truth". What do you mean by it?

Laird: In this context by "truth" I mean that which has meaning in life.

DQ: I'm not sure that I can think of a more meaningless definition of truth.

Laird: Granted, I didn't phrase it particularly well. What I intended was that by "truth" in this context I mean typical (as in dictionary-definition) truths that are also those most significant and meaningful in life.

David: As in genocide, racism, sexism, molestation, etc? These are all in the dictionary and many people find them very significant and meaningful in their lives.


Then I would say that those people are - in your parlance - "deluded" and have not actually found truth.

Laird: And I'm not claiming that my conclusions are absolutely proven truths, just that they seem sound to me.

David: Well then, you are wasting my time, as well as everyone else's. If you don't know what is true, then on what basis can you judge the truth or otherwise of other people's views?


I doubt that I will ever "know", in the absolute sense, what is true - although I'm open to the possibility. I do, however, "know" what is true in the sense that I have confidence in what I believe having thought about it carefully. And I believe that what I "know" is valuable, just as you believe that what you "know" is valuable. I reject though the notion that you have any more of a claim to truth than I do and therefore in my eyes we are both in the same boat, only I don't delude myself that my access to, and knowledge of, truth is any more privileged than anyone else, which gives me a certain degree of integrity that you lack - and ironically it is you who accuse me of lack of intellectual integrity!

David Quinn wrote:Kevin once accused you of arrogance, and he was absolutely right.


And I've observed that frequently people accuse others of what they are most ashamed to have recognised in themselves.
User avatar
Laird
 
Posts: 954
Joined: Tue Apr 24, 2007 1:22 am
Location: Tasmania

Re: Naturalistic philosophy denies life?

Postby Laird » Wed Nov 14, 2007 5:21 pm

Kevin Solway wrote:The word "feeling" is used for a lot more things than just emotions. The word "feeling" is also used for physical sensations, like feeling hot, cold, tired, or hungry. And these things are not necessarily emotional. Also, one can be said to "feel" things intuitively, that are also not necessarily emotional.

The only type of feelings that are necessarily faulty are emotional feelings, since they can always be found to have egotistical, which is to say deluded, content.


Granted that the class of emotions is a subset of the class of all feelings. The question then remains whether emotions have any value at all or whether they are, as QRS claim, entirely undesirable.

There is a particular moment in the Rage Against the Machine song, "Freedom" (lyrics; music video) where the music pauses and into this pregnant silence Zack murmurs the barely audible words "Anger is a gift", whereupon the music explodes into a passionately raging riff.

I have always been moved by this moment. It so skillfully captures the mechanism of anger: the calm before the storm; the quiet and sudden realisation of an awful wrong; the sudden infusion of burning energy that one may right the wrong. For a time I was conflicted given the message that society promotes: that anger is entirely destructive and wrong. Gradually though I came to recognise the wisdom in those words. To be constantly angry is a sign of a disordered personality, however to be able to tap one's anger as appropriate is a means of power. But hey, don't just take it from me - let's see how one of QRS's "spiritual brothers" goes about it:

The New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures, John 2:14-16 wrote:And he [Jesus] found in the temple those selling cattle and sheep and doves and the money brokers in their seats. So, after making a whip of ropes, he drove all those with the sheep and cattle out of the temple, and he poured out the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables. And he said to those selling the doves: "Take these things away from here! Stop making the house of my Father a house of merchandise!"


This is the behaviour of a man exercising righteous anger.

And I don't want to forget the different set of emotions evidenced by another "spiritual brother", Hakuin, who is quoted on David's site as writing of the parting of ways with his master:
Hakuin wrote:He had already finished speaking and was gone. But I was still bowed down in reverence, my forehead pressed to the earth. As I began to ascend the winding mountain path that took me farther and farther away from him, my eyes were filled with tears.


This is the behaviour of a man feeling deep emotions borne of abiding gratitude and respect.

It doesn't stop there though:
Hakuin wrote:As for sitting, sitting is something that should include fits of ecstatic laughter - brayings that make you slump to the ground clutching your belly. And when you struggle to your feet after the first spasm passes, it should send you kneeling to the earth in yet further contortions of joy.


So definitely Hakuin does not advocate that the emotion of joy be "dissolved through a recognition of the illusory nature of the self", or some such twaddle.

Correct anger grants us righteous power; tears can signify a deep and abiding respect for another: all emotions have some purpose or meaning. If we examine our emotional state we can gain clues that we can apply our reason to in order to discover some truth or another. But aside from the practical value of emotions, there is always the intrinsic value that they have as rich, complex human experiences.

Emotions are, indeed, a gift. QRS are free to choose to reject the gift; I choose instead to continue to develop my ability to integrate my emotions into my life in a meaningful, sane way.
User avatar
Laird
 
Posts: 954
Joined: Tue Apr 24, 2007 1:22 am
Location: Tasmania

PreviousNext

Return to GENIUS FORUM

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 1 guest