The Philosophy of the Self.

truth
Twyvel. I think that Krishnamurti was talking to Atmans, but that egos get in the way trying very hard to grasp his meaning(s). Alan Watts, who I studied with for a few sessions in the sixties, said that Krishnamurti told us in effect that there was nothing we could do to attain enlightenment, that all efforts merely reinforce the self. I have always felt this to be true, but in an ironic way. Enlightenment will not come to us automatically; it is a result of our "efforts"; but this "effort" must be TOTALLY passive, something that is immensely difficult to do. Krishnamurti's "technique" of passive awareness. Is just this, so is Soto zen's Shikantaza. Letting go is not something the ego can do. That is why meditation takes so many years. If one sticks to it (and most people quit after five or ten years, in my observation), one finally "gives up" and just continues to meditate. THAT is the beginning of meditation and the coming home to the Atman, Big Mind or No-mind.

Fresco, from my understanding of him, Chomsky really wasn't interested in the meaning of what people said, or how they conveyed ideas through language or thought up ideas and used them in cultural contexts. He was interested in the structure of the language and the logic behind the structure. You can't deny that there are structural ambiguities every once in a while - they might be cleared up by context, but context is not the point. What do you make of a newspaper heading like "British Left Waffles on Statton Island"? The headline is ambiguous because of the structure, but if you read the content of the article, the MEANING would become clear.

So are we talking about structural logic or semantic logic? They're entirely different things.

Ok, Terry, I wasn't sure what you meant by "lines". *notes ambiguity* Although, if you light a stage a certain color and then spotlight something that's white the same color, it literally disappears from veiw, edges and all. I saw this in Blast - a musicion in a white costume standing on a blue stage was spotlighted in blue immediately after his performance, and all you could see was his instrument levitating off of the ground. Similarly, when you put a black set peice in front a black backdrop, it disappears, even from a short distance away. If you're looking for it, you can see it, but an audience member might think something like "is he sitting on the skyline???"

Ok, enough with theatrical tangents.

I haven't heard of any people who can't see color at all. "Colorblind" people see two colors (typically red and green) as the same - I don't know the specifics on how that works, but the fact is that they are different.

"I find it more credible that millions of years of evolution have hard-wired our brains with traits conducive to survival in society, than the idea that our perception of reality is a delusional product of culture."

Is this supposed to be sarcasm?

Joe, I get Hume's point. We can't really be absolutely sure of anything. But of what use is that? If it's possible that the sun won't rise tommorow, what of it? We'll never know for certain. We do know that it's likely to rise, and I don't see the point of complaining that there's a very small chance that it won't. All we can do is look at the world and infer what is likely, and no one has proclaimed to be able to do anything more than that.

Perception, Descartes was humble because he was afraid of the Catholic Church. I have to say I'm very glad I'm NOT in his position.

JL, I am waiting for an answer - I want to know more about what's so interesting in this magazine.

JLNobody.

"Talking to Atmans (Brahman)",………..lovely phrase. Who else could he have been talking to?……....

Consciousness talking to itself.

Of course most people don't realize that consciousness is the entity not the ego, so in effect Krishnamurti and Balsekar etc. are talking to egos from the egos perspective, even though they are not, i.e. the ego doesn't hear, smell, taste, see, feel etc. anything.

I think it was Ramesh Balsekar who made the comment, i.e. that K was still talking to individuals. My understanding is that it was in context to Balsekar's repetitive utterances that all there is is consciousness, and his reference to ?'people' or ?'individuals' as ?'body-mind mechanisms'. I think there might have been a little ego in the comment suggesting that he and others have gone beyond Krishnamurti, though I doubt his followers would agree. None-the-less I think they and we are speaking the same language.

Continued persistence with all the contradictions and paradox's that go with that statement is the key. And one mustn't forget quantum, spontaneous, and/or sudden leaps of insights that in effect ?'beam' one(?) to another level(?) of ?'self(?) awareness.

Sometimes I think that if one ?'understands(?)' the true nature of reality(?) precisely at it IS, observes it for what it IS, or gets it, or however it can be phrased, one(?) would gain(?) instant enlightenment.

A lot of effortless effort is sometimes required for a ?'sudden' realization, as you have indicated.

A heard the metaphor that it's like walking up a fight of stairs and you don't know how many stairs there are nor can you see the next one. So you just keep climbing never knowing which step is the second-to-last one. And then suddenly, Wham.

truth
Yes, to see things as they are (to see Reality as it is) IS enlightenment. I like the observation that the ego does not taste, smell, etc. It, the ego, is like a hungry ghost who cannot savor life because it, the ego, is not real. So sad, almost like we all have a Llorona in us (A Mexican myth of a woman longing and searching each night for the children she murdered). Buddhist sometimes refer to egos as hungry ghosts. The craving for security, power, fame, immortality, etc. that some say Buddhism is all about abolishing is a bit off target, I think. It is my sense that it is the attachment to our ideas of things, our reification of such ideas that is taken for our desires that bind us to the so-called Wheel of Karma. We hang onto the wheel with our aching teeth because we think there is nothing else to do. We can't let go. This is the problem of misunderstanding the way reality is, of not knowing our true nature. Desire as such does not seem to me to be the problem in itself. Some people, scholars of mysticism, conclude that to be without desire is to come to enlightenment. When I have to pee, I desire a bathroom. To have no desires is to be either severly depressed or dead. But not to attach to the desires or the objects of desire, that feels right to me. My God, how many times and how many ways have I said this on this thread? It must be stale by now. What I like about your contribution is that you have never been thrown off track by the discussion. You never forget the delusional nature of self. You almost never answer a question AS IF you were talking about ego doing this or that.

Yes, non-attachment to desire or dis-identification from them. If the body has to go pee ?'it' has to do what ?'it' has to do. If it's the moment for a leaf to fall from its heights it will fall. Actions happen without doers. If we dis-identify from the action, even though there's no ?'one' to dis-identify, then actions/events just happen. And the silence witnesses.


The body knows when it's time to pee, the ego decides where, and consciousness provides the options,

Yet again you miss the point----Descartes was a truly great intellect and as such could have succumbed to arrogance but didn't.

Question for you ----was Nietzsche a nihilist?

BTW---since I'm the only one honored with a purposeful insult I don't feel obligated to extend any sympathy so ---"Lock and load".

Yes, in one sense, but not in another.

ni·hil·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (n-lzm, n-)
n.
Philosophy.
1. (a) An extreme form of skepticism that denies all existence.
(b) A doctrine holding that all values are baseless and that nothing can be known or communicated.
2. Rejection of all distinctions in moral or religious value and a willingness to repudiate all previous theories of morality or religious belief.

In definition 2, certainly he was. As for 1(b), I don't remember if he ever said that nothing could be communicated, but he certainly thought that all values were baseless. I wouldn't classify him as a nihilist according to 1(a), though. He only said that nothing could be known because it was always changing, not that nothing existed.

From a philosopher's perspective, I think it amounts to the same thing though.

rufio,

T/-\E C/-\T

context IS the point !

and I have been talking about problems of asigning set membership whose "permanance" is axiomatic to traditional logic.

I don't know what you are talking about because it appears to be a form of "mental fencing practice" where single phrases or elements of others responses are taken OUT OF CONTEXT.

Not if you're looking at structure. I could randomly string words together and it might get the point across, but the point is that's not how we communicate.

twyvel.

We don't differ in the final analysis ...that there may be no "we" to "differ"! The semi-enlighted "I" at level 2 is viewing the unenlightened "I's" at level 1 (sleeping) and is broadcasting its partial perception.

truth
Twyvel, you used the phrase "the silent witness". What a wonderful alias for Atman.

I would give you a c+ on that anwer----you stumbled around and came to the correct conclusion ----more or less----more less than more . You could have come to the same conclusion with a quick glance at most entries on the web under either "nihilism" or "Nietzsche". With a slight amount more analysis you would know that Nietzsche was a skeptic but not an "extreme" skeptic as in 1.(a) above. And you would also know that while many philosophers have warned us of the dangers of Nihilism it was Nietzsche who issued the most dire warning. He wasn't at all certain that mankind would survive the final encounter with nihilism but that if we did the future would be much brighter.

fresco

Can you tolerate an occassional distraction to an otherwise deeply intellectual discussion? Rufio seems to want to indulge in a minor jabbing contest but I promise not to go beyond one jab at a time.

How did I "stumble" in 5 short sentences? I explained my reasoning because I knew that if I didn't you were going to hurl some insult about not reading enough or not getting laid enough. I don't look at other people's websites for my information because I prefer to use my own brain rather than philosophizing vicariously through someone else's thought processes.

Also, the only thing my post lacks that your doesn't is this comment about warning us about Nihilism. In fact I also included some things you didn't. But I don't consider my knowledge of Nietszhe as a component in my mental competance, unlike you.

So bask in your ability to share the limelight with people who actually developed their own ideas, if that's what does it for you. But this isn't a class or a quiz show, so please avoid judging those of us who prefer to do our own thinking.

Perception,

Distractions, as opposed to disruptions, can be entertaining !

This is all at your behest, perception.

Yes, fresco, it might be misleading for JLNobody and I to use the word Atman in the plural.



JLNobody, yes, thanks,

Perhaps you should have used the web in conjunction with the DICTIONARY which you did use. Oh---excuse me you used your brain



What you did was to "string some words together" out of the dictionary which had no substance. You always manage to miss the essence which in the case of Nietzsche is this: he took skepticism and nihilism to the "edge" then upon seeing the full potential destructiveness he pulled back and warned mankind.

Perhaps instead of reading so many books you should read and re-read one until you understand the essential import of that one book then move on to another. As it is the chaos and disorder are evident.

The meanings of words is an empirical fact that's been recorded. What I personally think of Nietszche's philosophy is not.

I'm not interested in the essential import of whatever Nietszche wrote. You asked if he was a nihilist. I gave you an answer, not a doctorate thesis.

Rufio

As far as I'm concerned this is now a dead issue as I believe I've made my point to you. Please engage the others, hopefully with a little less aggression. While I heartily endorse your unwillingness to just accept anything thrown at you, I suggest you attempt to reconcile differences of opinion in your own mind as best you can before launching your knee-jerk opinion that the other person is an idiot.