Reply
Thu 17 Nov, 2011 10:02 pm
Hello All,
I was curious to know what progression your personal philosophy path has taken, in relation to personal development, how your actions (being) have been affected, and in particular - how your view of the subject of philosophy has evolved.
For myself :
Several years ago I wanted a way to achieve self directed growth. I read somewhere between 300-600 books (2 large bookshelves) over a few years, on a wide variety of topics (negotiations, the subconscious, emotions, listening, asking questions, brain function, coaching/mentoring, management, charisma, motivation, influence etc).
Within the first 10 or so books (negotiation/conversation related) I realised that such books could achieve greater awareness but not necessarily self directed growth - particularly not of specifics they thought were good. So from there - in reading books - I began looking for 'the pattern' that interlinks all actions.
I found numerous things : action affects thought&belief / belief&thought affects action...and many, many other things.
I found that philosophy - to me, was not particularly important if it did not improve my life/dream/reality (whatever you would like to call it - which is not important)...but that even 'irrelevant' ones could serve a purpose to improve brain 'structure' (but that was their sole purpose).
That is to say - I found philosophy useful...until recently, where - while it serves as the foundation of everything I train into myself, the point of other peoples philosophies no longer seem like a debating issue, but a personal journey...that they have to make for themselves...
That is to say - where I have before been active in these forums - now I find little interest in visiting and debating...and I'm not entirely sure why, except that it seems unecessary, and even irrelevant to a large degree (that is to say - I acknowledge what I've said above, but that doesn't seem like quite right as an explanation)
Has anyone else ever experienced something similar?
@vikorr,
My personal experience has confirmed that "self directed growth" is futile endeavor. This point is central to esoteric philosophy in which such a "self" is illusory. What traditional philosophical discourse does is illustrate the fragmentation of "self" insofar that opposing facets within "me" can come to the fore. These oppositions
can be rationalized objectively in terms of differing social allegiances, but such rationalization rarely has a chance to operate in time-constraints of everyday (non-contemplative) life.
So I agree with you that "debate" has little impact on "personal growth", but only because for me the latter is a myth. And the "awareness"you speak of involves recognition of that point !
What I do find "useful" in
some debate is the level of intellectual exercise which is not always available in "real life", albeit that some so called "questions" are best answered by silence. But the confidence with this "silence" has not come merely as a contemplative realization: it has been reinforced by reading up on the recent iconoclasm of Western philosophy by such writers as Wittgenstein and Rorty.
@fresco,
Hi Fresco, thanks for a very interesting post.
Quote:My personal experience has confirmed that "self directed growth" is futile endeavor. This point is central to esoteric philosophy in which such a "self" is illusory.
As I see it - the choice is 'use or be used' by my genetic structure. I choose to use my genetic structure
Quote:What traditional philosophical discourse does is illustrate the fragmentation of "self" insofar that opposing facets within "me" can come to the fore. These oppositions can be rationalized objectively in terms of differing social allegiances, but such rationalization rarely has a chance to operate in time-constraints of everyday (non-contemplative) life.
I am somewhat inclined to agree, except that these days the 'opposing facets' within 'me' seem natural and usually comprehensible to me. But I can see that even as I say that, I've taken time to develop the understanding necessary to recognise and 'deal' with such.
However I don't use a 'social allegiance' model to comprehend it. Loosely I use a 'spirit <--> mind <--> body <--> spirit' model (which can be translated in many different ways). Lately I've more been using pyramid 'primal core/individual <--> heart/social <--> mind/skills' where the mind is built on the heart and primal core, and the heart is built on the primal core. The pyramid of the latter may be an inverted pyramid (but to me, whether or not it is, is irrelevant). While it's not something I've read anywhere - I'm sure others must have used similar models. Just as I'm sure that as time moves, those will evolve.
Quote:So I agree with you that "debate" has little impact on "personal growth", but only because for me the latter is a myth.
That's fair enough - I think there is some usefulness in the 'self is mythical' viewpoint - if it's balanced by recognition that our genetics themselves promote a structure within us that may be 'viewed' as 'self' (even while recognising that such is mostly changeable)
Quote:What I do find "useful" in some debate is the level of intellectual exercise which is not always available in "real life"
Yes, I agree. This is one of the reasons I visit here.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace