There are two kinds of nothing.Arising_uk wrote: ↑Fri Feb 23, 2018 10:24 amBut the mind doesn't make up the body? The body makes up the mind.
1: the nothing that is the SELF
2: the DESPERATE nothing of the mind.
There are two kinds of nothing.Arising_uk wrote: ↑Fri Feb 23, 2018 10:24 amBut the mind doesn't make up the body? The body makes up the mind.
But didn't you agree with me that they can also be seen by the creator of the idea, that is that they are images, sounds and feelings in one's head?Dontaskme wrote:An idea can be seen as and through language written or spoken or through a material model. But these are recordings. Evidence appearing real. ...
Well for sure but they arise in the head of the creator.They are the appearances of no-thing...all appearances can apparently temporally be destroyed but Like a Phoenix Rising from the Ashes will arise once again...and again and again and again....
? Of course not as a mirror has no senses.A mirror cannot see itself, ...
Bang goes that two-hundred quid I just spent on a fitted gum shield to stop my teeth biting themselves at night then.just as teeth cannot bite themselves. ...
? I know, that is a reflection of me.You are not the image in the mirror...
IF it was illusory surely it wouldn't reflect?you are the mirror that cannot see itself except what it reflects from itself...illusory imageless images.
What's having the idea of me?The person with an idea is an idea, it's a mirror image of the mirror that cannot see itself except what it reflects, as illusory imageless images, a mirage...appearing real.
No, but I've seen my painting in my head.No it's not in there either....have you ever seen a painting inside someones head?
But you agreed with me earlier that we can see ideas?Nope, the picture that already existed was an idea....only ideas exist, and ideas are invisible.
But I've never denied you the right to state your ideas?You mean like when you deny me same...good game isn't it trying to pin down what is actually really true or not true in reality.
Actually, you are the one still getting lost in a fairy story that's only half true. You never managed to properly integrate the new understanding, and you can't really make others see it either by talking word salads.
Yeah, lets fuck those who hold to their own beliefs....while holding on to our own which is okay that we do that as long as it does not conflict with someone else's belief, but yeah, we will happily take our own beliefs as being our own invented given right to be ours and ours alone.. and fuck anyone else's belief.
If there are two kinds of nothing then there is not nothing?Dontaskme wrote: There are two kinds of nothing.
1: the nothing that is the SELF
2: the DESPERATE nothing of the mind.
Resonance.
You forgot to mention what precedes "Fuck them all" and the reason for it. Is all of your deeply abstract wisdom informed by an even profounder hypocrisy that you quote only this? People like you and Nick are truly loathsome disgusting frauds; this makes it necessary to sometimes call a spade what it actually is and amounts to...fubarDontaskme wrote: ↑Fri Feb 23, 2018 10:46 amYeah, lets fuck those who hold to their own beliefs....while holding on to our own which is okay that we do that as long as it does not conflict with someone else's belief, but yeah, we will happily take our own beliefs as being our own invented given right to be ours and ours alone.. and fuck anyone else's belief.
The point is...if someone believes it is okay to go around killing people for a laugh...then what right would you have to oppose that belief that is their own given right to have ..just as yours is your own right? ..if you hold the opposite belief that it is wrong to kill people just for a laugh, then what gives you the right to hold to your belief and at the same time deny another persons belief?
Is that the sort of world you want to live in? ...can you live by that self imposed moral standard?..can you?
Because that's basically what you are saying here.
Well it’s a good job I’ve stopped believing in untruths...what you think of me is non of my business.Dubious wrote: ↑Fri Feb 23, 2018 11:04 amYou forgot to mention what precedes "Fuck them all" and the reason for it. Is all of your deeply abstract wisdom informed by an even profounder hypocrisy that you quote only this? People like you and Nick are truly loathsome disgusting frauds; this makes it necessary to sometimes call a spade what it actually is and amounts to...fubarDontaskme wrote: ↑Fri Feb 23, 2018 10:46 amYeah, lets fuck those who hold to their own beliefs....while holding on to our own which is okay that we do that as long as it does not conflict with someone else's belief, but yeah, we will happily take our own beliefs as being our own invented given right to be ours and ours alone.. and fuck anyone else's belief.
The point is...if someone believes it is okay to go around killing people for a laugh...then what right would you have to oppose that belief that is their own given right to have ..just as yours is your own right? ..if you hold the opposite belief that it is wrong to kill people just for a laugh, then what gives you the right to hold to your belief and at the same time deny another persons belief?
Is that the sort of world you want to live in? ...can you live by that self imposed moral standard?..can you?
Because that's basically what you are saying here.
Not so, I'm just wondering why you think empiricists are not seekers of truth and what exactly you mean by a 'seeker of truth' and what 'truth' it is that you think is found?Nick_A wrote:Curious. You support external empiricism or scientific knowledge but refuse to believe it is incomplete for the human experience the seeker of truth is drawn to. ...
Not so as I have some of my own in this respect but I just want to know what methods you would be using?As strong as you support external empiricism or science, you reject the conscious attempts to “know thyself” or have the inner experience of oneself. ...
You're begging the question here and whilst we're here could you given me some different 'eternal values' as the one's you've already supplied appear to have big problems when it comes to morality and ethics.Could we ever verify the reality of eternal values without first experiencing them in the process of self observation? ...
Well it's nice to listen to the organ-grinder for once and see how you have prostituted his ideas for your own needs.I’m convinced that methods of inner empiricism would be impossible to teach in modern universities. The temptation to corrupt them to establish politically correct answers would destroy the efforts. Eternal values cannot be prostituted since we are closed off to the experience of them. ...
http://cogweb.ucla.edu/Abstracts/Needleman_93.html
You'll have to say what you think this method of 'inner empiricism' is? As schools and monasteries of mediation are abundant as are Guru's and don't forget those Yoga classes without which you'll not be meditating in any real sense.So those sincere seekers have to find others like themselves. This isn’t easy
It's really not meaningless as your Professor Needleman himself offers examples so all I'm asking is what it is you would be teaching, that is, what methods are you proposing?Arising often asks me what I would teach. This is meaningless without first acknowledging the human condition which defines reality as appearances. Only a few will be open to the process but who can teach it other than those who have experienced it and have experienced eternal values. Prof. Needleman concludes the article with:
Still waiting for you to provide some examples of these values as the one's you gave appear to have unfortunate moral consequences.Science will establish facts and inner empiricism will establish objective values. ...
It really isn't, in fact in the world and it's history it has been the predominant education to the dearth of what we would call an education, although this does appear to be changing now.But the world is against inner empiricism. ...
Which is what I think you are actually proposing as you would pre-determine what the seeker should be looking for.It prefers indoctrination. ...
I wish you would make your mind up, either you want to change our education system to teach your stuff or you don't, if you don't you really need to stop wasting your time on a false tirade against academic education and walk your talk by telling us your methods and techniques of 'inner empiricism', telling us what 'eternal values' you have discovered with them and better still start up a school that others can attend. If not then it's all just waffle presumably based upon some earlier bad experience with schooling and your pre-school indoctrinated religious beliefs.Seekers of truth are forced to find authentic spiritual schools as opposed to the myriad expressions of charlatanism and escapism. So spirit killing under the banner of education rules the secular world. Secular education will attempt to indoctrinate the politically correct lie supporting the whims of the Great Beast while the authentic spiritual school develops the autonomous observer in pursuit of the experience of reality and eternal vlues. The young seeker of truth really has virtually everything against them.
I think because Psychology is about mental illness and others and Phenomenology is about one's healthy self. Although I do think some of the schools of Psychology are heading this way as a treament for mental health. That and that it just came out from Continental Philosophy and I'm sure they were influenced by results from Psychology et al, M-Ponty surely was.Belinda wrote:I am puzzled as to why phenomenology is classed as philosophy and not psychology. Also may we say "from the phenomenological perspective" as if to mean "from the subjective perspective" ?
Sorry, I forget that many who come to Philosophy forums haven't had the opportunity or taken the time to read any.
So I might urge Nick to cease observing from his subjective perspective and instead adopt the phenomenological perspective?p.s.
With respect to the 'phenomenological' versus the 'subjective' distinction, I think they'd like to say that if it was discovered to be 'phenomenological' then it would be 'objective' in a way that 'subjective' wouldn't.
I see that, and probably some others see that as well.Dontaskme wrote: ↑Fri Feb 23, 2018 11:21 am
Well it’s a good job I’ve stopped believing in untruths...what you think of me is non of my business.
I actually think Nick to be a very intelligent speaker...he’s not hating on any one..he’s just high lighting issues that apparently exist within the human psyche....
I just don’t get why people here can’t see that...