aphilosophy

[evangelicalhumanist]

Typist (of a certain notoriety on this forum) has been repeatedly asked to talk directly to his concept of "aphilosophy," and even to start his own thread on the subject. He declines (for reasons unknown) to do so.

At risk of being an idiot, I have decided to open the topic up for discussion. However, since the risk is mine, I'll take the advantage of trying to set the tone by being the first poster on the topic!

Aphilosophy, so far as I am able to understand it from the various posts in which Typist mentions it, appears to be an appeal to "stop thinking, and just observe." So, the first question to be asked is obviously: "Is this a correct characterization of 'aphilosophy?'"

The second question I might pose immediately after is a little more complex, but equally deserving of an answer from the "aphilosopher." The question requires a small prologue:

We, as humans beings, have a toolbox of things by which we can understand our world, ourselves, and how we fit within it. The tools in the box consist, so far as we know, of some physical senses (let's not quibble about the number) that allow us to directly perceive the world, along with an intelligence that allows us to process that which we learn from our senses so as to acquire a richer understanding than our senses alone can provide. Now, it is also true that the senses (however many there may be) are limited in their scope: we see and hear only within a very small range of frequencies; we cannot directly sense by touch, taste or smell any number of things, as the experience would kill us; and so forth.

The question, then, is "why would we give up so important an ability as thought in order to rely on some very limited senses? What do we hope to learn in so doing?"

And that is a question only the aphilosopher can answer, I think.

[puto]

Well this question is quite simply answered: if you know what philosophy is, then you should know what aphilosophy is, very simple question.

[Typist]

Typist (of a certain notoriety on this forum) has been repeatedly asked to talk directly to his concept of "aphilosophy," and even to start his own thread on the subject. He declines (for reasons unknown) to do so.

Just a quick housekeeping matter, and then we can forget this and move on to your other more interesting points.

It is nothing less than TOTALLY ABSURD to be continually accused of being stingy with my perspectives. There is absolutely no evidence of this premise, and page after page after page after page of endless evidence to the contrary. Seriously, I'm really not kidding, are you guys all on LSD?

If yes, why are you not sharing???

If I'm not a good writer, if I'm not clear enough, if you don't get it yet because you've only studied this topic for about 30 minutes, ok, no problem. We can work on all that together.

But c'mon guys, enough already with the "we can't get Typist to talk" gibberish, ok?

Alright, I've had my say, yet again, 47 billion words and still counting. Moving along now, I'll drop it if you will.

[puto]

Evidence is not philosophy

[Typist]

Well this question is quite simply answered: if you know what philosophy is, then you should know what aphilosophy is, very simple question.

Puto, welcome to the topic, and I must say, this is the best post any of us have written so far on this subject. The way you've put this is very much in keeping with the spirit of aPhilosophy, in a way my posts are not.

Yes! Very simple!

What is philosophy? What is it literally? Thought.

aPhilosophy is "a-thought".

The conceptual part of aPhilosophy is of course thought, a philosophy, subject to the same limitations of any philosophy.

However, integral to this philosophy, what makes it different, is the suggestion that the philosophy part be discarded at the earliest moment, in favor of the "a-thought" experience part.

Puto said it better!

[puto]

That is not aphilosophy defined, unless your stipulative.

[Typist]

The question, then, is "why would we give up so important an ability as thought in order to rely on some very limited senses? What do we hope to learn in so doing?"

A good question, with a simple answer.

The suggestion is not to give up thought entirely. aPhilosophers have to pay their phone bills just like everybody else.

Rather, the suggestion is to explore beyond the boundaries of thought, in order to gain some much needed perspective, and understand thought better.

If I had sex 57 times a day, every day of my life, I wouldn't know what horny was, and thus wouldn't really understand sex.

[puto]

Do you know why the Greeks put a in front of the word

[Bill Wiltrack]

.


Typist is writing with confidence.


He describes interesting insights of a philosophical nature.


Quite frankly, Typist has taken on all comers brilliantly and in-turn, a lot of members here are looking rather shallow.



I still don't understand it.


.

[puto]

Nobody has told me what aphilosophy is, and is not.

[Typist]

Bill, this just happens to be a topic I'm familiar with. Perhaps more familiar than some other members. If the topic was Immanuel Kant, union organizing, or any of a thousand other topics, I wouldn't be so confident.

[puto]

Then if you are, so familiar with the word then define aphilosophy.

[evangelicalhumanist]

Well this question is quite simply answered: if you know what philosophy is, then you should know what aphilosophy is, very simple question.

Puto, welcome to the topic, and I must say, this is the best post any of us have written so far on this subject. The way you've put this is very much in keeping with the spirit of aPhilosophy, in a way my posts are not.

Yes! Very simple!

What is philosophy? What is it literally? Thought.

aPhilosophy is "a-thought".

The conceptual part of aPhilosophy is of course thought, a philosophy, subject to the same limitations of any philosophy.

However, integral to this philosophy, what makes it different, is the suggestion that the philosophy part be discarded at the earliest moment, in favor of the "a-thought" experience part.

Puto said it better!

Yes, I get that. But the question remains, "why?" What is gained by abandoning that which evolution has striven so mightily to accomplish in our species? (And Bill, I'm sorry if that remains a "shallow" question. But I'd ask the same of the Cheetah who decided to be a member of the aspeedy group. Having done so, it's a pretty good guess that he'd quickly starve.)

[Typist]

A quick little side trail....

Another post on the forum reminded me to learn more about Wittgenstein, something I've been working on inch by inch. I found this on Wikipedia...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophi ... stigations

Through such thought experiments, Wittgenstein attempts to get the reader to come to certain philosophical conclusions independently; he does not simply argue in favor of his own conclusions. These approaches can be very effective and rewarding, but it can also make Wittgenstein's philosophy difficult to grasp.

This reminded me of the writing style of one of my influences (in regards to aphilosophy), Jiddu Krishnamurti.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jiddu_Krishnamurti

Many readers have also found Krishnamurti difficult to grasp, for much the same reason. He doesn't simply drop the punchlines in your lap, it's more a matter of creating an atmosphere conducive to the listeners's own explorations.

The student comes looking for the bottom line, and Krishnamurti may bounce the ball back in their lap by saying something like, "Ah, that's an interesting question you pose. So, what do you think?"

An example might be a comparison between say, western music and Indian music.

Western music is linear. Like traveling a straight line from beginning, to middle, to end. I'm guessing this style of music reflects the nature of the thought-centric western mind. We can see thought is always traveling, on it's way from A to B, the past to the future, in movement towards some goal etc.

Indian music seems to have (no expert here) a different geometry. It seems more circular. It seems to create an environment which the listener is invited to enter and experience. We aren't going somewhere else, we're already here.

Western music is like hiking down the trail, while Indian music seems more like sitting under the pear tree and listening to the birds.

The point of all this is....

Making a 180 degree turn in to a fundamentally different paradigm seems to involve various writing challenges, which may frustrate both reader and writer.

Philosophy is much like western music, linear. A journey from A to B.

aPhilosophy is more like eastern music, circular. Not a journey, but the opposite of a journey, a decision to stop hiking and sit down inside an environment, and just be there.

So, part of the challenge we face is that we're trying to use a straight line to describe a circle. We're trying to hike earnestly forward in to sitting in one place. We're trying to use philosophy, to describe it's opposite.

[puto]

You people really don't know what aphilosophy is, do you