The Couch

How would guaranteed privacy affect your actions?

Comments on How would guaranteed privacy affect your actions?

Thinker13
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 27, 2009

Total Topics: 357
Total Comments: 3379
#26 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 05/01/09 - 1:27 AM:

Charlotte Stuart wrote:
"Ah, you fear the world too much." That's probably not true of you--it just came to mind. It's a quote from old Chas Dickens.



Intuition!You may be correct yet I am more of a rebel!clap



Charlotte Stuart wrote:

The kind of independence an individual can have in society is, it seems to me, revealed better by description than by argument. Lots of people have some. People can start working toward it by noticing where they are hampered or bound by expectations not their own. When you look, pointedly, significantly, at another person (and when there is no obvious social reason for the gaze), the other can become self-conscious.



You seem like an old friend suggesting some new thingssmiling face




Charlotte Stuart wrote:

If kicking in your back fence, the other may even stop the process, or slow it down. Similarly, if an individual becomes aware of personal attitudes and behaviors that don't arise from his or her personal agenda, but from someone else's, that individual can diminish the spontaneity and force of the incursion, first by looking (maybe "watching" is a better term), then by refusing to be controlled. I maybe describing a territory you are already aware of...



You are quite up to the mark.You are describing the process of meditation-the process of becoming more and more conscious of reactions--yet-there is a 'catch'-what is that?
No matter whether you are witnessing the thought stream-being a 'Drashta' OR as you said "refusing to be controlled"--what is left there?--"thought".Who watches the 'thinker'-'thought'--What is that thought?--That is the 'society'--that is the 'upbringing'--that is the 'conditioning'--that is the 'programming'--SO-the conditioning which reinforces to break the conditioning is also 'conditioning' and the witness sense is also 'thought'.Observer is the observed--thinker is the thought and so forth--yet there is no way out of thought--there are voices which may be slowed down a bit--but in end there is always a thought--because you are a 'thought'.




Charlotte Stuart wrote:

Ideally, I guess, you never really drop out of the mainstream; you just find your own current within it. Lots of folks do meditation and things like that, partly with this objective in view.

Zum



You can not.Meditation relieves your stress.Makes you more intelligent,yet,never allows you to be 'free'--"freedom from the known" is just a fancy catch phrase and nothing else.'Known' is trying to make itself free from itself--how can it be done?It is suicidal and hence it fails!laughing


zum Thank You zum


Edited by Thinker13 on 05/01/09 - 5:30 AM
libertygrl
Administrator
Avatar

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Apr 16, 2005
Location: San Francisco

Total Topics: 425
Total Comments: 4672
#27 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 05/01/09 - 6:47 PM:

the last 3 posts about madphilosophers have been moved to another thread. cheers! lib
Thinker13
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 27, 2009

Total Topics: 357
Total Comments: 3379
#28 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 05/02/09 - 1:41 AM:

libertygrl wrote:
the last 3 posts about madphilosophers have been moved to another thread. cheers! lib



I was not aware of another thread for the samesmiling face.I will keep posts relevant to their threads.Cheers!




Thank You
Zum
Senior Member

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 21, 2009

Total Topics: 23
Total Comments: 420
Zum
#29 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 05/02/09 - 10:16 AM:

That you can't ESCAPE thought is certainly true.

It's possible to distinguish between "thought" and its "conditioning" in terms of grammar, though. It seems to me that the way a thing is spoken of in terms of grammatical speech does not really PROVE anything about that which is considered, if one adopts the stance of a skeptic. But, hey, unchallenged proofs, in philosophy, are in short supply, and should be... Grammar demonstrates the structure of our thoughts about it. We can perceive, think, and say "green leaf"; when we do so, we present "leaf" as the substantive, the thing; and "green" as the quality or condition of the thing. Now we can say "conditioned mind." In this case, "mind" is presented as the substantive; it's the noun in the phrase. "Conditioned" has the modest status of an adjective; it's the quality of the substantive. The existence of that phrase implies that the mind can exist without the conditioning or prior to the conditioning or might take on other conditioning, and is, anyway, distinguishable from its conditioning.

Now we can also say "mental conditioning." In this case "conditioning" stands as the noun and "mental" serves as the adjective. But when we do this, we feel that we are performing a fancy grammatical trick--nominalizing what is really a process or a quality. "The greening of America."

Before you learn to play the guitar, other mentality is already going on, and probably you already know other tricks.

All right, so (if our thought about thought is accurate), thought exists logically and temporally prior to its conditioning, and it exists, not merely as present mental activity, but also as a human potential. No matter how many tricks you learn, you can learn others. Before you knew the tricks you know, you did not know them. If you can play guitar, you can still learn slide trombone and keyboard. You can learn and believe the creeds and practice the ethics of a religious system, then scrap the whole thing (it remains as memory), and consider other systems. Happens all the time.

This seemingly unlimited potential for the new is relatively unconditioned, and, if you'll pardon the word, unconditionable. I say "relatively" because in some contexts, this potential can be (and, in some places, is) daunted and terrified to the degree that it cannot operate. I guess, actually IT is not terrified, but the person is, and the person trains herself not to use it... Otherwise, the potential is opportunistic in the best sense; it looks around, it evaluates, it sees what's there (it's like a little kid: the emperor has no clothes). This is the faculty that can watch programmed thoughts during the meditation process. Zum
Zum
Senior Member

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 21, 2009

Total Topics: 23
Total Comments: 420
Zum
#30 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 05/02/09 - 12:50 PM:

Another thought: to say that individuals are only their conditioning is to negate notions about broad possibilities of human communication and human commonality. To the degree that one is only conditioning and that conditioning differs among cultures, inter-cultural communication is impossible, not jut hard. Thought-structures based on the influences of Buddhism or Christianity, which seem to urge that cultural differences are not species differences, are refuted, their aims frustrated, and one's world is rather small.smiling face Zumsmiling face

Thinker13
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 27, 2009

Total Topics: 357
Total Comments: 3379
#31 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 05/02/09 - 1:11 PM:

Charlotte Stuart wrote:


It's possible to distinguish between "thought" and its "conditioning" in terms of grammar, though. It seems to me that the way a thing is spoken of in terms of grammatical speech does not really PROVE anything about that which is considered, if one adopts the stance of a skeptic. But, hey, unchallenged proofs, in philosophy, are in short supply, and should be... Grammar demonstrates the structure of our thoughts about it.



Indeed.


Charlotte Stuart wrote:

We can perceive, think, and say "green leaf"; when we do so, we present "leaf" as the substantive, the thing; and "green" as the quality or condition of the thing. Now we can say "conditioned mind." In this case, "mind" is presented as the substantive; it's the noun in the phrase. "Conditioned" has the modest status of an adjective; it's the quality of the substantive. The existence of that phrase implies that the mind can exist without the conditioning or prior to the conditioning or might take on other conditioning, and is, anyway, distinguishable from its conditioning.



For most of it we agree with each other yet I want to differ a bit.I think mind is nothing but "accumulated thought pattern"-therefore,I think that mind(thought) in itself is 'conditioning'--it is, in itself,compulsive,no matter what the type is.Every thought of yours is compulsive conditioning and that is why you can't be thoughtless even for a moment--that is why I went even further to suggest that "you are the thought"---otherwise how do you know that "I am"--Everything you know is thought and thought is the sole instrument of knowledge--ever compulsive conditioning.All other acquired behaviours are nothing but accumulation of distinct pattern of thoughts by the already existing thoughts--so I think there is no need of catch phrases like "conditioned mind" OR "conditioning of mind" because "mind is the conditioning" ---"thought is the conditioning"--It becomes slower with the process of meditation and reflection.


Charlotte Stuart wrote:

Now we can also say "mental conditioning." In this case "conditioning" stands as the noun and "mental" serves as the adjective. But when we do this, we feel that we are performing a fancy grammatical trick--nominalizing what is really a process or a quality. "The greening of America."



Indeed.As I have also written above.






Charlotte Stuart wrote:

This seemingly unlimited potential for the new is relatively unconditioned, and, if you'll pardon the word, unconditionable. I say "relatively" because in some contexts, this potential can be (and, in some places, is) daunted and terrified to the degree that it cannot operate. I guess, actually IT is not terrified, but the person is, and the person trains herself not to use it... Otherwise, the potential is opportunistic in the best sense; it looks around, it evaluates, it sees what's there (it's like a little kid: the emperor has no clothes).



You are right yet I think it isn't what I was hitting at.


Charlotte Stuart wrote:

This is the faculty that can watch programmed thoughts during the meditation process. Zum



I think it is not the case.The 'drashta' OR "witness perspective" is the assumed mental watchman who keeps an eye on each and every thought,how it arises,develops,and finally subsides.It is "thought watching itself" OR "observer is observed" --resulting in slowing down of thought OR in momentarily "aha" experiences--anyways--it is still 'thought'!--'culture'--'conditioning'--'programming'.If you have encountered software programming basics--you know that functions-which contribute in building up of complex programs are also programs!



Thank You



Thinker13
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 27, 2009

Total Topics: 357
Total Comments: 3379
#32 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 05/02/09 - 1:18 PM:

Charlotte Stuart wrote:
Another thought: to say that individuals are only their conditioning is to negate notions about broad possibilities of human communication and human commonality. To the degree that one is only conditioning and that conditioning differs among cultures, inter-cultural communication is impossible, not jut hard.


I don't get you fully here.The possibility of inter-cultural communication/relation is inherent in the capability to change your conditioning,in being open to learning and so on.I don't see any reason why there is implication of difficulty OR impossibility of inter-cultural conditioning taking placeshaking head




Charlotte Stuart wrote:

Thought-structures based on the influences of Buddhism or Christianity, which seem to urge that cultural differences are not species differences, are refuted, their aims frustrated, and one's world is rather small.smiling face Zumsmiling face




I don't think so.How do you interpret this?Rather I was suggesting that no matter what--there remains conditioning--there remains bondage--there remains compulsion--which is 'you'--which is 'thought'--which is cause of not only of all knowledge but also of all suffering and miseriessmiling face



Thank You
smokinpristiformis
child of the stars
Avatar

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Apr 20, 2005
Location: Belgium

Total Topics: 74
Total Comments: 1247
#33 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 05/04/09 - 1:50 AM:

Isn't it true, though, that we can bend and stretch existing memes to a certain degree, and ultimately create something that could pass as a new one?
Thinker13
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 27, 2009

Total Topics: 357
Total Comments: 3379
#34 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 05/04/09 - 2:29 AM:

smokinpristiformis wrote:
Isn't it true, though, that we can bend and stretch existing memes to a certain degree, and ultimately create something that could pass as a new one?



Indeed.smiling face
Zum
Senior Member

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 21, 2009

Total Topics: 23
Total Comments: 420
Zum
#35 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 05/04/09 - 10:59 AM:

Cool.

We are coming from different places, and the differences are probably based on semantics.

I don't know anything about programming, so I'm missing your analogy, quite possibly... I'm using "conditioning" in the conventional sense, based, I suppose, on psychology, meaning, roughly, trained or modified by an external influence. Thus BY DEFINITION, using THIS definition, mind (considered as an innate capacity) can't be conditioned before this external influence is brought to bear. It is conditioned only after something conditions it.

In psych class they told us that "conditioned reflex" meant "trained reflex." Then they told us about Pavlov and the dog and the lab experiment. Normally the animal would salivate whenever Pavlov brought it a dish of food. Dog smelled the food, body reacted and began to prepare to eat. As an experiment, Pavlov modified the routine a bit: he rang a bell just as he brought in the food, every time. Dog would salivate: food. You probably know all this. Then he tried ringing the bell, not bringing in the food. Dog, of course, salivated: food anticipated because of a repeated past association: bell/food. Conditioned reflex. So "conditioned," in this sense, means, modified through experience-- or in particular this case--modified through experimental shenanigens. Now, of course, social critics have picked up the word "conditioned" also, in contexts in which "conditioning" can come across as nefarious meddling with inner freedom--as does the term "brainwashing." You know all this; I'm just laying it out here. "Conditioning" has other uses, of course; brainwashing is the one, pejorative, use...

So, inconsistent with this pejorative use, a conditioned body is one that shows the effects of exercise, is buff. Now all bodies are like this...

Okay, functions that contribute to the building up of complex programs are still functions. And it is implied that thoughts that contribute to building up of complex thoughts are thoughts. Yes, absolutely. To a degree that a thing is only what it is, it is bound by intrinsic, inescapable limits. These are is own limits limits, not those imposed by external influence.

There might by important difference between functions and thoughts that would be pertinent here... smiling face
Thinker13
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 27, 2009

Total Topics: 357
Total Comments: 3379
#36 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 05/04/09 - 11:27 AM:

Charlotte Stuart wrote:


We are coming from different places, and the differences are probably based on semantics.



true.


Charlotte Stuart wrote:

I don't know anything about programming, so I'm missing your analogy, quite possibly... I'm using "conditioning" in the conventional sense, based, I suppose, on psychology, meaning, roughly, trained or modified by an external influence. Thus BY DEFINITION, using THIS definition, mind (considered as an innate capacity) can't be conditioned before this external influence is brought to bear. It is conditioned only after something conditions it.






I understand conventional psychological usage of terms like 'conditioning','mind' etc.Yet wherever necessary,I have explicitly provided definitions on my behalf.



Charlotte Stuart wrote:

In psych class they told us that "conditioned reflex" meant "trained reflex." Then they told us about Pavlov and the dog and the lab experiment. Normally the animal would salivate whenever Pavlov brought it a dish of food. Dog smelled the food, body reacted and began to prepare to eat. As an experiment, Pavlov modified the routine a bit: he rang a bell just as he brought in the food, every time. Dog would salivate: food. You probably know all this.



Yes I know!



Charlotte Stuart wrote:

Then he tried ringing the bell, not bringing in the food. Dog, of course, salivated: food anticipated because of a repeated past association: bell/food. Conditioned reflex. So "conditioned," in this sense, means, modified through experience-- or in particular this case--modified through experimental shenanigens. Now, of course, social critics have picked up the word "conditioned" also, in contexts in which "conditioning" can come across as nefarious meddling with inner freedom--as does the term "brainwashing." You know all this; I'm just laying it out here. "Conditioning" has other uses, of course; brainwashing is the one, pejorative, use...



Indeed.I can see the conventional definition of 'conditioned'.





Charlotte Stuart wrote:

Okay, functions that contribute to the building up of complex programs are still functions. And it is implied that thoughts that contribute to building up of complex thoughts are thoughts. Yes, absolutely. To a degree that a thing is only what it is, it is bound by intrinsic, inescapable limits. These are is own limits limits, not those imposed by external influence.

There might by important difference between functions and thoughts that would be pertinent here... smiling face



It was only an analogy,methinkswinkWhat I was trying to say is : "Thoughts are result of a conditioned process,outside of your choice,which is random as well as non random depending on the context you use to analyze.In any case,thought is 'mechanical' and is not a voluntary excursion.That is why I said that those all voices are cultural,social voices and there is no personal voice to be found.Still,it is my culture/upbringing speaking here and your culture/upbringing listening there!clap



Thank You Zum!
Zum
Senior Member

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 21, 2009

Total Topics: 23
Total Comments: 420
Zum
#37 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 05/04/09 - 4:16 PM:

Cool.

In many of the arguments to which I've listened and in which I've participated--seldom as cordial as the chat that goes on through Forum, by the way--I've noticed that often the opponents differed as to verbal definition or as to analogy, or both. By the time they/we were entrenched in our positions, nobody wanted to define terms or ask themselves what analogy they were (unconsciously, perhaps) employing.

It's possible that you, Thinker, see mind as substantive, and therefore as quantitative. I have become aware that I see it as process.

In other words, you may be seeing thoughts as things, thought- entities, thought-particles--and perhaps that is the most apt way of looking at them, since, clearly, our minds do accumulate thinglike convictions, memories and such stuff, more or less static-- also prohibitions (don't go there!) and, in some cases, mandates (whatever you think, do not think in such a way as to abolish THIS). And we all have memorized thought-routines (like dance steps); some of them you can learn in school--the syllogism, the sonnet. Etc.

All of this is fixed and numerable and in principle exhaustible.

I see mind as process, for reasons I've given in earlier posts. Clearly, thought can be seen under either aspect. The process aspect is what interests me particularly.

As to the meditation business, it does so work; I've done it. My aims are very modest; I don't seek enlightenment. What it can do is make one quicker to notice when one drifts away from the focus one desires. A really boring desk job, by the way, can accomplish the same thing, if you need to keep the job... From Vapassana meditation I only wish to learn to notice when I lose focus before anyone else does...

Oh, the spiritual benefits? Well, humans at times drift into unhelpful musings...

Thanks, Thinker.

Zum
Thinker13
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 27, 2009

Total Topics: 357
Total Comments: 3379
#38 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 05/04/09 - 4:41 PM:

Charlotte Stuart wrote:
Cool.

In many of the arguments to which I've listened and in which I've participated--seldom as cordial as the chat that goes on through Forum, by the way--I've noticed that often the opponents differed as to verbal definition or as to analogy, or both. By the time they/we were entrenched in our positions, nobody wanted to define terms or ask themselves what analogy they were (unconsciously, perhaps) employing.



I would like to use words discussion/interlocutor in place of argument/opponent if you will.smiling face



Charlotte Stuart wrote:

It's possible that you, Thinker, see mind as substantive, and therefore as quantitative. I have become aware that I see it as process.



For sake of conversation-I have treated it as substantive.Indeed mind(thought) is a process-but what then is ego(self)--isn't it also a thought?Isn't it the root of thoughts-the most primordial thought from which all thoughts emanate?





Charlotte Stuart wrote:

In other words, you may be seeing thoughts as things, thought- entities, thought-particles--and perhaps that is the most apt way of looking at them, since, clearly, our minds do accumulate thinglike convictions, memories and such stuff, more or less static-- also prohibitions (don't go there!) and, in some cases, mandates (whatever you think, do not think in such a way as to abolish THIS). And we all have memorized thought-routines (like dance steps); some of them you can learn in school--the syllogism, the sonnet. Etc.



It seems to be an effective way because you assume yourself to be a "drashta" for sake of meditation.



Charlotte Stuart wrote:

All of this is fixed and numerable and in principle exhaustible.

I see mind as process, for reasons I've given in earlier posts. Clearly, thought can be seen under either aspect. The process aspect is what interests me particularly. .



Good.It very much depends on way you have been exposed to it.


Charlotte Stuart wrote:

As to the meditation business, it does so work; I've done it. My aims are very modest; I don't seek enlightenment. What it can do is make one quicker to notice when one drifts away from the focus one desires. A really boring desk job, by the way, can accomplish the same thing, if you need to keep the job...



Is 'Enlightenment' not a modest goal?I wonder kooky





From Vapassana meditation I only wish to learn to notice when I lose focus before anyone else does...



Perhaps it is called "Vippassana"?Do you not sound a bit competitive in the sentence above?(You are indeed being honest,methinks wink!)




Charlotte Stuart wrote:

Oh, the spiritual benefits? Well, humans at times drift into unhelpful musings...

Thanks, Thinker.

Zum



Indeed.


smiling faceThank You Zum smiling face
Zum
Senior Member

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 21, 2009

Total Topics: 23
Total Comments: 420
Zum
#39 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 05/04/09 - 8:58 PM:

Yep, it's vippassana, all right, I checked it. The spell check does not like that any better than the other version, though.

It's hard for me to conceptualize the self (ego) as a thought. Who is thinking it?

I'm becoming interested in how preference-- probably-- bends all philosophy. The more extensive and delicately crafted the philosophical system, the more extraordinary the labor it presupposes, and the more passion it presupposes. How could this passion not be allied to a wish that something and not its opposite be true? Descartes scared himself half to death, obliterating everything in the course of his systematic doubt, then cheated like a card shark as he put it all back in place, under a more secure basis, or so he thought. (My reading...) As we argue about thought, I become more entrenched in my point of view.

I have an idea. Let's argue each other's positions.

Want to?

Zum
Thinker13
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 27, 2009

Total Topics: 357
Total Comments: 3379
#40 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 05/05/09 - 1:59 AM:

Charlotte Stuart wrote:


It's hard for me to conceptualize the self (ego) as a thought. Who is thinking it?


It is crystal clear to me at least.I doubt that you would find yourself strangled in my empirical evidence,anyways,I shall give it a try before calling it quits!Why 'self' is a thought?It is a thought because--if you witness it(I know that 'you' are 'self')--by the way of Drashta perspective OR in other words--"if you keep on watching the stream of thoughts,very carefully--you see that there is always a primordial thought before any of the thoughts--and it is 'me'--then there are other thoughts.I know,I can never be up to the mark while explaining it unless you have meditated yourself.So :'me' is the first thought--as a rule--always--then,there is 'mine' and all other thoughts follow.In a way you can say that 'me' is the first,foremost and most subtle of all thoughts.This 'me' is the coordinator of all sense perceptions--the false image,from which we all operate,comes as a result of simultaneous,quick,coordination of all sense perceptions--while there is no 'image'.That image-which is the 'me' acts as an 'ego' OR 'self' incessantly.In some of the practices--perhaps in 'Samadhi'--you come to feel 'delocalized' 'self' that may sound bizarre OR quirky---you come to notice that 'self' is sometimes in 'heart' and sometimes in 'bloodstream' and sometimes in knuckles and so on... kooky disapproval raised eyebrow




Charlotte Stuart wrote:

I'm becoming interested in how preference-- probably-- bends all philosophy. The more extensive and delicately crafted the philosophical system, the more extraordinary the labor it presupposes, and the more passion it presupposes. How could this passion not be allied to a wish that something and not its opposite be true?


Very pertinent question!I think a philosophy which declares that entire reality of your world is maya(illusion) and declares that your world view is nothing but distorted perception due to thoughts--and declares that 'thoughts' are not much important because they are 'illusion' can not attach too much importance to its baggage.Can it?I think--witness sense/drashta bhava-suggests you to be an observer only and this never attaches much importance to thoughts--be they yours OR those of others!It is never too passionate!




Charlotte Stuart wrote:

Descartes scared himself half to death, obliterating everything in the course of his systematic doubt, then cheated like a card shark as he put it all back in place, under a more secure basis, or so he thought. (My reading...) As we argue about thought, I become more entrenched in my point of view.



It happens in every argument,quite perspicuous because of the approaches we take.Only if Descartes could have been aware of thoughts as thoughts!


Charlotte Stuart wrote:

I have an idea. Let's argue each other's positions.

Want to?

Zum



And I thought that you were done with itwink grin laughing nodWhy not?Your tone is not of discussion but that of argument now. wheeYes--let us argue,altercate and tear apart each other's reasoning(Or non-reasoning).



Thank You
Zum
Senior Member

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 21, 2009

Total Topics: 23
Total Comments: 420
Zum
#41 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 05/05/09 - 6:45 AM:

I didn't mean, argue WITH each other's positions. I meant, TAKE each other's positions. Defend each other's positions. Switch sides. To see what that is like. For fun, or for a thought experiment. One of the philosophers who is rewarding to read, Nietzsche--who does not deserve his nefarious reputation, in my opinion--while maintaining a sort of overall consistency, frequently shifts his position. Actually, face it, he contradicts himself, or, at least, does this: he praises and adores a thinker, then, in the course of his scrutiny of him, discovers a flaw in him, and writes about it with a perspicacity and ruthlessness peculiar to him. (No flaw, however slight, could long escape such scrutiny...) To run with this for a moment, the flaws he criticizes are not those of logic, but those of honor, taste, disposition, orientation and character...isn't that interesting? I believe Nietzsche wished to develop within himself something he called great health--that of the spirit. He is dismayed to find weariness and pessimism in a line attributed to Socrates in the Phaedo, where he is reported to have said, a moment before his death, "I owe a cock to Aesclepius" (for the cure of the disease of life)...

Also, the inconsistency is about his determination always to honor the insight of the moment; never to neglect or discard it merely because yesterday he said the opposite. As a result of his reverence for the ideas with which he was visited--in one place he calls them little birds--he is great company. He fails to give unity to the diversity that is to be found in life, but he does honor the diversity...

From your description, I take it that "self as thought" may be an experience in a meditation of a particular sort. I'm aware that you can postulate self in various parts of the body, but I don't think that is what you are referring to. I will keep going back to that post... Probably the only way to relate to it would be to match it up with an experience of my own.

Zum
Thinker13
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 27, 2009

Total Topics: 357
Total Comments: 3379
#42 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 05/05/09 - 7:08 AM:

Charlotte Stuart wrote:
I didn't mean, argue WITH each other's positions. I meant, TAKE each other's positions. Defend each other's positions. Switch sides. To see what that is like. For fun, or for a thought experiment.



Its my misunderstanding.OK,now what are you going to defend?--that "Self is a thought" and what am I going to defend --that "Self is a thinker"?you can guess that I would fail sooner than you!



Charlotte Stuart wrote:

One of the philosophers who is rewarding to read, Nietzsche--who does not deserve his nefarious reputation, in my opinion--while maintaining a sort of overall consistency, frequently shifts his position. Actually, face it, he contradicts himself, or, at least, does this: he praises and adores a thinker, then, in the course of his scrutiny of him, discovers a flaw in him, and writes about it with a perspicacity and ruthlessness peculiar to him. (No flaw, however slight, could long escape such scrutiny...) To run with this for a moment, the flaws he criticizes are not those of logic, but those of honor, taste, disposition, orientation and character...isn't that interesting? I believe Nietzsche wished to develop within himself something he called great health--that of the spirit. He is dismayed to find weariness and pessimism in a line attributed to Socrates in the Phaedo, where he is reported to have said, a moment before his death, "I owe a cock to Aesclepius" (for the cure of the disease of life)...

Also, the inconsistency is about his determination always to honor the insight of the moment; never to neglect or discard it merely because yesterday he said the opposite. As a result of his reverence for the ideas with which he was visited--in one place he calls them little birds--he is great company. He fails to give unity to the diversity that is to be found in life, but he does honor the diversity...




Sounds interesting.smiling faceNietzches as well as his superhuman was too sick !clap laughing Have you read about superhuman of Aurobindo?I enjoyed mostly "Thus Spake Zarathurstra".



Charlotte Stuart wrote:

From your description, I take it that "self as thought" may be an experience in a meditation of a particular sort. I'm aware that you can postulate self in various parts of the body, but I don't think that is what you are referring to. I will keep going back to that post... Probably the only way to relate to it would be to match it up with an experience of my own.

Zum



Yes.I think it is an evident outcome of any sort of meditation --not an outcome of some particular meditation only.Secondly--I realize that it might be a little hard for you to grasp that essence of all meditative activities is to develop "drashta sense" OR "witness perspective".So what is to be done now?



Thank You


Edited by Thinker13 on 05/05/09 - 7:25 AM
Thinker13
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 27, 2009

Total Topics: 357
Total Comments: 3379
#43 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 05/05/09 - 7:33 AM:

Charlotte Stuart wrote:
I didn't mean, argue WITH each other's positions. I meant, TAKE each other's positions. Defend each other's positions. Switch sides. To see what that is like. For fun, or for a thought experiment.



Now I realize that it is not very easy for me to be in someone else's shoes as far as philosophical reasoning is concerned.No,I can exactly be a Neptunian agent feeling like the other,dissolving my boundaries for a while--this works as long as I tend to feel the mind of others-to take an insight into their psyche--yet,when it comes about propounding a theory OR idea--I am going to be in a position of utmost importance to me--yeah,it is just an opinion,a thought,yet,I find it to be a little bit insincere to propose a false truth.



zen Thank You zen
Zum
Senior Member

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 21, 2009

Total Topics: 23
Total Comments: 420
Zum
#44 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 05/05/09 - 9:40 AM:

Sure. I understand. I couldn't argue in favor of the self as thought, if the phrase means, "the self is a merely a thought." It might be interesting to argue that all thoughts are conditioned, but the arguments, coming from me, would undoubtedly be casuistry and babble.

Want to take a break?

I want to thank you for responding so fully and carefully to my posts!

Zum zen
Thinker13
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 27, 2009

Total Topics: 357
Total Comments: 3379
#45 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 05/05/09 - 9:47 AM:

Charlotte Stuart wrote:
Sure. I understand. I couldn't argue in favor of the self as thought, if the phrase means, "the self is a merely a thought." It might be interesting to argue that all thoughts are conditioned, but the arguments, coming from me, would undoubtedly be casuistry and babble.



Same heresmiling face




Charlotte Stuart wrote:

Want to take a break?



As you will.smiling face I am completely at rest cool




Charlotte Stuart wrote:

I want to thank you for responding so fully and carefully to my posts!

Zum zen



You are welcome.It is my nature to offer appropriate feedback to all my interlocutors smiling face




Thank You
Search thread for
Download thread as
  • 0/5
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5



Sorry, you don't have permission . Log in, or register if you haven't yet.



Acknowledgements:

Couch logo design by Midnight_Monk. The photo hanging above the couch was taken by Paul.

Powered by WSN Forum. Free smileys here.
Special thanks to Maria Cristina, Jesse , Echolist Directory, The Star Online,
Hosting Free Webs, and dmoz.org for referring visitors to this site!

Copyright notice:

Except where noted otherwise, copyright belongs to respective authors
for artwork, photography and text posted in this forum.