Are Philosophers lost in the clouds?

Well unfortunately due to other Be-ings that decide to make a Government, Politics, all these extra crap we don't really need, we're subjected to it SOMEWHAT. That's not to say you should let it affect your Be-ing. YOU are only as relevant as YOU are to YOURSELF. A mosquito is nothing more than a living thing(just as yourself) who is also "operating" at the same time as you and everyone else.

NAACP;

Now you know first hand what I meant when I said they can't hear you because they turn everything into a concept and that's not what you're saying.

Lying is covering up Be-ing.

And certainly a mosquito is as relevant as it is to itself, right? It must find itself a lot relevant, since it has bitten me! And I have killed it, so no matter how much relevant it was finding itself, its relevance is now history.

It's an old habit of ours that goes back to Thales of Miletus...

Lying is falsely turning a falsehood into a truth: being is not only truth.

I've always known.......I just needed someone(you) to "confirm" it so to speak.

'History' to you...........

Be-ing is Be-ing my friend...........stop with your concepts and conlusions, they do not exist........the Be-ing still goes on..

Well, if I do not exist, then shouldn't you stop addressing me?

You just repeated the action in which I have condemned in all of my statements, stop turning everything into a concept and let yourself be. There are no "answers" to find outside of yourself I assure you. We just are.......we just are.

No, you didn't. That's the same mistake I made.

Who did what now? NAACP? Who is this?

NAACP;

Go back about 7 posts. That'll get rid of your bewilderment.

I posted the following in another discussion thread and thought you might get value out of it.

Mark;

I see the difficulty you and I are having. You think that empirical (measurable, definable) data has something to do with 'knowing'.

Empirical data gives you measurable, definable proof of the 'world'. 'Knowing' comes from 'Be-ing' and it has nothing to do with the measurable, definable world. That's why you can 'know' and not be able to 'prove'. But you already 'knew' that, didn't you?

You are defining your 'self' from the outside-in, in terms of the world. I'm defining my 'self' from the inside-out, in terms of Be-ing. What I'm saying comes from 'knowing' (Be-ing) and not from 'proving' (the world)

Do you remember when Jesus said “I am not of this world”? I suspect this is what he was talking about. (Yeh, I'm aware that somebody's going to drop the 'other shoe' on what I just said. It's ok, I'm wearing a flak jacket.)

You have probably figured out that I don't care about empirical data (worldly stuff) (I also suspect this is what “giving up your 'worldly possessions'” is pointing to), I only care about Be-ing/knowing. I have to be aware of the world because 'I' live along side of it. Ignoring the world, which includes trying to convince anybody that it doesn't exist would be a dangerous undertaking (like stepping out in front of a car). But, 'I' don't have to express my Be-ing as if I am 'the world' (a measurable, definable thing of the world).

Also, you are accurate. I don't know what you would say.

Whether you want to admit it or not, the first thing you 'see' is 'table' with a tablecloth, silverware, dishes, and place mats and not the way you explained it.

Oh yes, I did read this and got value out of it indeed. Knowing and not being able to prove........what hell it is. Talking is so pointless, our thoughts are for 'ourselves'.....'we' could never get any further than our own Be-ings......it's selfish really. Thoughts are not for other thoughts, they breed misconceptions.

It's not hell, it's heaven. The only reason you could think that it is hell is because you think you have something to offer to the people in the cave. You have nothing to offer. Having "something to offer" comes from thinking that you are better off than someone else.

'They' (there is no 'they', there is only Be-ing) are as 'whole' as you are 'whole'. The only difference is that you are just beginning to represent Be-ing from the inside (Be-ing), out and they are still representing Be-ing from the outside (the empirical world) in. Neither is 'better' than the other. It's just a choice you already made.

Your post let's both of us know that you can't offer anything to the people in the cave as long as you think that being outside of the cave is better. The 'cave' and 'outside' the cave are only reference points, not judgements.

Your 'thinking' is for your 'self'. You can't 'lead' anybody to disentangle themselves from the empirical world. Everybody is telling you that you can only disentangle your 'self'.

One last thing. Living is not a goal to get to. There is no 'further'. There is only Be-ing. This is another 'thing' that supports your conclusion re: hell.

I wish you talked to me more often.........

philosophy is only lost if it thinks of relgion and refers to it as the only way to think of Humanity

it is not

Humanity and this planet , its health should always come first , through science ( knowledge ) and through attitude , that nothing is before Humanity and/or this planet

this planet and Humanity is above god , always

Haven't checked in on this thread in a while...

Wow... How deep in clouds can heads get?

A
R
T

NAACP;

Because you asked for more, here is a post (from another forum). I responded to this person deep in scientific explanation as to why the world defines Be-ing. This person lives on Madagascar which is why the intro addresses 'eucalyptus forest'.

One other thing before you start reading what I posted. I suggest that we change the name of this forum from "Philosophy Forum" to maybe, "Random Opinions Forum" because there is a whole lot of opinions, concept comparison, point-of-view defense, and ruffled feathers, but no real thinking, creation, philosophizing. It doesn't appear that anybody here has any interest in moving the conversation forward. It also looks like the people participating in this forum are only interested in defending the same territory they've been defending for years. Not only are they only interested in defending the same territory, they don't even notice that they can't do anything else. Read the responses to this post and you'll see what I'm talking about. Maybe one person will take this as an opportunity to notice something and not as a reason to react. People in this forum don't seem to want to investigate the possibility that it's their concepts and defense of those concepts that have them 'running around the same track' and 'trying to out-muscle the competition'. Alan Watts was right, in over 2500 years (can't measure pre-historical) we haven't graduated past 'territorial monkey'.

I have 'bumped' into only one person entangled in the labyrinth of measuaribility and definabiity who appears to want to do something about it, and that's you.

Here's the post I mentioned:

martti_s;

I have never heard the term 'eucalyptus forest' used by anybody, so that got me to thinking. Do you live in Australia? Where do you find eucalyptus forests?

I have a problem with your usage of "theologically, socially or through the eyes of cognitive neurosciences" and "meaningful in a given context" to define Be-ing. They are pre-defined by the combination of characteristics contained in each of those concepts, and, if you'll take notice, the pre-defined concepts ignore 'you', Be-ing.

“Theologically”, for example, is a specific view-point and is kinda like a funnel. You circle around the 'big end' of the funnel gathering information from Christians, Catholics, Buddhists, Muslims, Jews, atheists, the Torah, the Bible, the Koran, theologians and many others. You think each point-of-view through and notice the similarities and differences and what drops out of the small end of the funnel is a selection of attributes. Some agree with and others you disagree with. You subsequently 'file away' the one's you agree with and unwittingly take on the role of the combination of characteristics you have collected.

As time passes you 'come upon' an 'inkling' of an idea that Religion hasn't resolved anything for you. You either give up sorting through more data and take what you know as 'fact' and represent it to others as 'fact', (A 'fact' is something you no longer question and is the end of thinking/Be-ing), or, you keep looking at more data re: theology and never notice that 'theology' (the concept) has already defined your quest, the 'combination of characteristics', and subsequently who you are. Once you come to the end of that attempt at resolution, you again 'come upon' an inkling of an idea that Religion hasn't resolved anything for you and you either start again or you live your life as if everything you found is a 'fact' and you stop thinking/Be-ing.

The above paragraph applies to “socially”, “cognitive neuroscience”, “given context”, “memory”, “mind”, and all other 'concepts' (combinations of characteristics) we use to re-present Be-ing.

Humans Be-ing are compelled to collect combinations of characteristics to represent/define who they are without question and since that is what everybody else is doing, they think it is the 'only' way to represent Be-ing. I say, that 'you', Be-ing, are happening prior to "you, collecting characteristics" and 'you' doing what everybody else is doing. 'You' have to be there before the 'collecting' and 'doing' can take place.

Re-presenting your 'self' as a 'thing' of the world is 'inauthentic'. Inventing a new way of speaking for the sole purpose of re-presenting your 'self' as Be-ing is an arduous undertaking in a world of 'things' but it is the only way to be authentic, true to Be-ing, truth. Yes, who you are is 'truth'. There is no such 'thing' as 'the truth'.

Re: "In Search of Memory: The Emergence of a New Science of Mind". As long as we have been on this planet nobody has been able to prove the existence of 'mind' no matter what technology they use to attempt to prove the measurability of the 'mind'. Furthermore, you will ultimately find that 'mind' is another 'combination of characteristics' used to re-present Be-ing in terms of the measurable, definable, world. The same goes for memory.

There are a plethora of different "valid standpoints" and you could spend a lifetime investigating and being right about them all. Once you finish that investigation and being right, you will realize that 'you' are at the center of all those investigations and that what you haven't been looking at is 'you', Be-ing. You have been looking outside of your 'self'. Once you come face-to-face with the undefinability of Be-ing you will stop Be-ing a 'thing' of the world and start Be-ing who you are.