UnbornTao

Sorry if it came out as a personal attack. In any case, it's true -- our culturally-shared obsession with ourselves doesn't help.

Then, perhaps, we'd be mainly talking about sensation rather than feeling, although of course the latter would likely also occur. Presumably, other animal species would sense it, yet the various feelings that we, as humans, might associate with the sensation -- such as irritation, worry, despair, or being startled -- might not be produced by the animal. That might give us a hint as to the origin of feeling. How can we clearly differentiate between sense, sensation, feeling, reaction, emotion, and state? Something to look into.

Now, could feeling itself be based on a thought, just of a different kind than what's usually meant by "thought"?

I liked the original trilogy, but not so much the recent ones. What made the original one so well-received, apart from that? The rest aren't considered as good. The element of terror was likely an important factor.

@z3rolight Thank you for the input. Consider, though, that contemplation as an intellectual activity is only a starting point. There are things that aid this work; arrogance and opinions aren't among them. From what I can tell, you are standing on a bunch of presumptions and conjecture, and that's fine. Yet, what helps here is being open and straightforward with oneself about one's experience as it is actually lived. This pushes us to experience the work and to make observations for ourselves, not just intellectualize about stuff.

@z3rolight My bad. I think I understand your question now, and so edited my response above. The question is just about the human condition as a whole -- experience, emotion, perception, relationship, performance, principles, and so on.

As they say, there's no freedom of thought without doubt.

Hey, dinosaurs. Hopefully it's good.

@z3rolight Sounds good. Still, the question of what the human condition really is remains.

Perhaps, but what is one's nature? It might not be what we think it is. From that recognition, we can begin investigating the matter freshly.

@z3rolight It's fine, thank you. I would add that if one's commitment is to understanding, then the attitude implied in your post is not a mindset we can afford, as it is essentially a justification for ignorance based on a desire for comfort and convenience. You are right, though, that there are times when tools other than the intellect and logic should be used, such as sitting in stillness, feeling, and so on. And it can all be part of the investigation as a whole.

@Someone here But what are perception and meaning? This is about insight rather than conjecture, preference, consensus, and so forth. Intellect, feeling and intuition aren't the only tools available, despite our cultural presumption that they are; direct apprehension is possible, which is why I brought up the historical antecedent. Oversimplified, the absolute is like a sheet of paper, while the content of the sheet is the relative. Everything is absolute, including the relative, and what allows for the existence and recognition of the relative as distinct, is that it has a particular form -- whatever’s painted on the sheet is some form, that is, it exists relative to what it is not. Don't take this too seriously, though -- it's an analogy. As a meditation, take a small object in your vicinity and ask yourself: What is it, independent of me? What is there as a presence? We operate on the assumption that what we perceive is an accurate reflection of what’s there and generally don’t move past that. However, this might not be the case. In fact, to tackle the question of meaning, where is it found? In your relationship with and experience of things, hence, in your mind. A tree exists. Asking what the tree means does not make sense in itself. What exactly are we asking by that? The question of what something means applies whenever value and use are attributed to the object, in relation to one’s self and agenda. As itself, an object just is. A tree doesn't seem to despair over the meaning of its life. It is "tree-ing", and that is it. Without the act of generating meaning, it isn’t found anywhere! Relative to itself, the question of what the object means is nonsensical, superficial. It could be said that it exists, hence its meaning is that it is. I suspect you'll hear that as a negative, yet that would still be operating from within the meaning framework. It doesn't mean anything that it doesn't mean anything. You are free from meaning, and can also create it. Now, fuck my assertions and anyone else’s. What is the case here?

Nice.

Start consciously creating and cultivating something now. It could be anything, really: an observation, question, plan, goal, sketch, poem, song, dish, workout, meditation, book, hobby, curiosity, mood, skill, business, relationship, project, understanding, disposition, or attitude.

What if "bad" and "good" exist exclusively because of, and for, yourself?

@Aaron p Clean up your posts a bit (formatting, uppercase use, weird signs) and do not spam the forum with links, thank you.

It’s really about being honest with oneself. When we understand that we don’t directly apprehend the nature of anything, that’s a solid observation -- and no "answer" will change that condition. What does change it is becoming personally conscious, beyond experience and perception, of self, existence, space, and so on. What is true must be tackled on its own terms. Since we’re discussing absolute matters, this, once again, cannot be achieved through relative means. There’s no possible thought, notion, or system, however complex and elaborate, that could convey the true nature of existence -- whatever that may be. At best, it could provide direction, and open doors. You seem to be seeking validation or social consensus but that approach won’t work. Again, you can operate on principles and on accurate axioms. Regarding meaning, it is a complementary process to the existence of something. Get the nature of something first. Hey, you could start with what meaning is, and how it itself is meaningless. Consider that the "answer" already exists; you just need to apprehend it. Individuals throughout history have presumably already done this, so it is possible.

Heresy! Burn him!

According to GPT, it was David Hume’s skepticism about causality. Something like: How can we justify our belief in necessary causal connections when all we ever perceive are discrete events?

@Someone here Answers are irrelevant. Again, looking for a piece of information to believe in is not the same as experiencing what's true first-hand. As a matter of fact, answers disrupt this process. It is useful to recognize that no notion can be true in itself -- since we're talking about ultimate matters here. The true nature of anything must be tackled on its own terms, which is to say, what's ultimately true can't be gleaned through relative means. What's comfortable and what's true are different goals. I know the mind struggles for certainty and it would rather have anything, even if untrue or dysfunctional, rather than have no place to stand. But one can learn to abide in this state without having to fill in the blanks. Your disposition could be summarize along these lines: "World, tell me what to believe in. I don't care what it is, just provide me with a set of answers so that I can get myself off the hook."

1) To the first one, yes, it is not necessary. Where does the notion of needing "existential comfort" come from? You can create grounded axioms for yourself based on accurate perceptions, and follow principles. You can even operate on empowering beliefs as long as you recognize them for what they are. 2) People as a whole tend to seek simplistic, comforting answers to explain reality, life, and their own existence while going about the business of living. This lends itself to fantasizing and does not require much effort at all. Religion plays a huge role in that, as does science, though to a lesser extent. Religion, being faith-based, discourages questioning which is a necessary requisite for making any kind of discovery. Even though certain wise individuals throughout human history might have shared profound insights under the umbrella of "religion", these must transcend any system or dogma and be personally and profoundly experienced as the case. Yet, rather than undertaking this work, people quickly turn these things into shared conjecture, diluting, misrepresenting, and so undermining the spirit of inquiry itself. The point is truly listening for an experience or consciousness, not in believing a set of propositions. These are totally different.

Achieving enlightenment, one whiskey at a time. No, and just in case, do not go down problematic roads.

Guys, focus: postmodernism.

It might not be a coincidence that philosophers, monks, and similar tend to be solitary types, even if they do end up socializing -- sometimes quite a lot. Solitude can help cut out the distractions of one's culture. This might be unrelated, but: When all is said and done, insights need to be generated in one's experience. The social domain is exclusively survival-oriented -- the truth isn't what that is about. This isn't to say that an individual can be entirely detached from the social realm, regardless of the environment. Even being alone is a function of "others." As an example, when one of Kant's students posed a question he couldn't answer, he chose to isolate himself for seven years to contemplate the matter. Why would he do that? I'd add that everyone feels alone, even when surrounded with people and distracted, but this may be beside the point.