Vibroverse

Western philosophy

37 posts in this topic

may also just be total bullshit like religions and woo woo spiritualities, mind fantasizing stuff and getting lost in its modellings. 

Edited by Vibroverse

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nothing is total bullshit, and everything is different.


Intrinsic joy is revealed in the marriage of meaning and being.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In a way yes but in a way no. I see language as inherently arbitrary, so in a sense yes.

However, I currently see all communication an being an expression of some met or unmet fundamental human need or needs. Philosophy is no exception. So its not just bs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I see in western philosophy is the constant attempt of creating forms in mind based on the perceived reality, and then formalize it as being the only way that it is. 

Looking at the experience, and moving to a model building from the experience, without understanding that the model that they build is but another part of the experience. 

I think postmodern philosophers, maybe even starting with Heidegger, understood this problem, but there still is an addiction to the perceived experience as being the "isness" of existence. 

And, I think, that's where they are trying to distinguish themselves from mysticism and spirituality, but with that experience they simply limit being to their current experience of being. 

But they don't, genuinely, question the experience of being by understanding the truly perceptual experience of being, the correlation of being with itself as the perceiver of being. 

That, then, creates never ending loops in the perception, and a lack of willingness to understand the very perception of perception, the very experience of being that is, itself, the being. 

 

Edited by Vibroverse

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And most philosophers did not understand the importance of state of being. I mean, they did not understand that thought is reflective of the state of being, and thought, in that sense, is the appearance of state of being. 

I mean, some philosophers, as I understand, understood this situation, at least to an extent, like Hegel, Plotinus, Plato, and Spinoza, and the Stoics, that they understood the importance of being in the state of peace, love and tranquility. 

They seem to, sorta kinda, understand that, but I don't see that any of them worked on that extensively. They become so involved in the process of thinking, and model building, that they were not aware of the background of the state of being that they did experience. 

That was like a given for them, that they became that mode of being in their own modality, but what was the ground on which they became them? Now, I know, I might, in a sense, be overgeneralizing, but what is it in them that made them "them" that they were? 

I'm seeing that Heidegger was pretty aware of the importance of understanding being for the sake of being, but what is it that is being that is the experience of being? What is the ground of being if being is being in its own very beingness that made him possible for him? 

And, at that point, you may say "but then that is 'overmystifying' being", and that what I said about them modelling experience, and being another part of that modelling of the experience, can also be applied to what I'm saying here, and that can be, in a sense, an inevitable loop of "being", when it is the experience of consciousness. 

But isn't philosophy, then, the experience of reaching towards yourself to discover and build yourself with the "tools" that you have, that are concepts, and concepts of concepts, "possibly" ad infinitum, that makes you you, that makes you the experience of transformation that, then, explains itself? 

That's one of my questions about being, or of being, the process of "gathering information". What even is information if being is being, and if being is, also, the mode of being that it is? What makes a thing a thing, or a mode of being a thing, if it also is the mode of being itself? 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To me, it feels like becoming a representation of a certain state of being without realizing the state of being that it represents, because what else is there in existence other than existence to create anything from? 

Thought seems to have a certain pattern of being in the process of it becoming. And, okay, I'm not against any game anyone is playing, but believing that your game is "the" game is the problem. 

Because you are comparing the realness of your game to another aspect of your game. The question then is, though, is the substance of your game you? I mean, is the substance from which your "becoming" is made you? 

I mean, what is the "other" from which you are acquiring that which has not been you? If I tell you that which is not, yet, you, then are you appropriating it to what makes sense to you? 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Vibroverse said:

What I see in western philosophy is the constant attempt of creating forms in mind based on the perceived reality, and then formalize it as being the only way that it is. 

No, that is called dogmatism. Most philosophers that are worth listening to embody a certain level of epistemological pragmatism, i.e. they see their philosophies as just philosophy, not as reality. The only way you'll get this impression is if you listen to popularizers of science like Neil deGrasse Tyson or Richard Dawkins.

 

2 hours ago, Vibroverse said:

Looking at the experience, and moving to a model building from the experience, without understanding that the model that they build is but another part of the experience. 

A materialist or physicalist isn't necessarily a dogmatist either.

 

2 hours ago, Vibroverse said:

I think postmodern philosophers, maybe even starting with Heidegger, understood this problem, but there still is an addiction to the perceived experience as being the "isness" of existence. 

And, I think, that's where they are trying to distinguish themselves from mysticism and spirituality, but with that experience they simply limit being to their current experience of being. 

But they don't, genuinely, question the experience of being by understanding the truly perceptual experience of being, the correlation of being with itself as the perceiver of being. 

That, then, creates never ending loops in the perception, and a lack of willingness to understand the very perception of perception, the very experience of being that is, itself, the being. 

Non-dual mysticism is a very simple and reductionistic philosophy, and it doesn't take you very far in terms of describing or explaining the contents of reality. Sure, you have to posit certain irreducible assumptions to go beyond it, but it's worth it when you see all the good it can do. Western philosophy is not empty, and it has relevance to the human experience.


Intrinsic joy is revealed in the marriage of meaning and being.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But the thing is, what are those contents that the western philosophy bring to us? I mean, is that content not an aspect of you that you reveal to yourself? Is the content coming from outside or are you actually realizing that which is inside as that which is being?

If we think of reality as one infinite consciousness, then isn't the concept actually one of the forms, or formalities, that which is empty appears to be? Is the content real, or is it itself, in a sense, another category of mind? 

I mean, is the self self, or is it the way that it becomes self, like if I tell you something, including a model of reality, isn't it you appearing to yourself as me, as that which is you but hidden to you? 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

High quality 20th century Western philosophers such as Heidegger, Merleau-Ponty, and Alfred North Whitehead all engaged with the problems of Western philosophy that you outline.

If you're into Heidegger I'd highly suggest checking out Merleau-Ponty and Alfred North Whitehead in particular. Both do a really good job deconstructing the epistemic problems of materialist philosophy.

Merleau-Ponty tackles the meaning of embodiment in a very penetrating way, and Alfred North Whitehead outlines a very sophisticated treatment of the dialectics between Being and Becoming in his process-relational philosophy. Both philosophers are very good for cultivating Construct awareness.

Edited by DocWatts

"The mind is inherently embodied.
Thought is mostly unconscious.
Abstract concepts are largely metaphorical." - George Lakoff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, DocWatts said:

High quality 20th century Western philosophers such as Heidegger, Merleau-Ponty, and Alfred North Whitehead all engaged with the problems of Western philosophy that you outline.

If you're into Heidegger I'd highly suggest checking out Merleau-Ponty and Alfred North Whitehead in particular. Both do a really good job deconstructing the epistemic problems of materialist philosophy.

Merleau-Ponty tackles the meaning of embodiment in a very penetrating way, and Alfred North Whitehead outlines a very sophisticated treatment of the dialectics between Being and Becoming in his process-relational philosophy. Both philosophers are very good for cultivating Construct awareness.

I've studied Merleau-Ponty and Whitehead to some extent through other teachers, but not read any of their books yet. I've found them to be pretty interesting figures, so I can study them in more depth, mhm. 

Edited by Vibroverse

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Vibroverse said:

But the thing is, what are those contents that the western philosophy bring to us? I mean, is that content not an aspect of you that you reveal to yourself? Is the content coming from outside or are you actually realizing that which is inside as that which is being?

Can you read my thoughts?


Intrinsic joy is revealed in the marriage of meaning and being.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Carl-Richard said:

Can you read my thoughts?

1 hour ago, DocWatts said:

High quality 20th century Western philosophers such as Heidegger, Merleau-Ponty, and Alfred North Whitehead all engaged with the problems of Western philosophy that you outline.

If you're into Heidegger I'd highly suggest checking out Merleau-Ponty and Alfred North Whitehead in particular. Both do a really good job deconstructing the epistemic problems of materialist philosophy.

Merleau-Ponty tackles the meaning of embodiment in a very penetrating way, and Alfred North Whitehead outlines a very sophisticated treatment of the dialectics between Being and Becoming in his process-relational philosophy. Both philosophers are very good for cultivating Construct awareness.

I've studied Merleau-Ponty and Whitehead to some extent through other teachers, but not read any of their books yet. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Carl-Richard said:

Can you read my thoughts?

Yeah, I probably cannot, and reading, or listening, etc, probably is the path of least resistance for communication in the relative domain of being. Consciousness, in the mode of space and time, creates a path of least resistance, in a sense, like that. 

However, is it the content that matters or the form, and mode of conceptualizating, that do? And philosophy can be pretty helpful, I agree with that, no arguments about that, but my problem is about the nature of thoughts themselves, about what thoughts even are. 

I mean, yeah, if you wanna eat corn you first need it to grow, it manifests for you through a certain path, and, in the relative domain, at least, we experience such a thing as process and time, and a certain mode of experience. 

I need to learn from an expert, for instance, if I wanna learn how to code, etc. There are certain patterns of learning and grasping things in a way that makes sense to us. But what I'm questioning actually is that. 

If we are the infinite consciousness, then why do we feel like we need to follow certain steps? I mean, it probably is because we believe that we cannot access it, or become it, directly, yes. 

But the thing is, why do we buy into that mode of being and believe that it is the only way that really works, if we truly understand that we are the infinite consciousness? I don't say that it doesn't make sense on the relative domain of being, but why do we think of it as the only possible, and practical, way that there really is? 

True, I cannot read your mind yet, but does that mean that I, then, will never be able to read your mind? Because if you and I are one, and in reality there only is one mind, then isn't it possible, really, that we might be just limiting ourselves with the limiting beliefs? 

I mean, if at the ultimate, or absolute, level all is one, all is self, then can't all those infinite possibilities of being already be yourself, and that we, maybe, are just limited by our own beliefs that are imposed upon us by "society"? 

I mean, can't we just be, unconsciously, overwhelmed by the, something like, collective unconscious about our beliefs that just seem to be so obvious for us to believe? And, of course, for now, at least, it must be the most logical thing to do to follow the path of least resistance. 

And maybe, yeah, the mode of interactivity, for now, at least, might be the mode of being that is the most satisfactory for us given where we are as the state of being that we, in a sense, currently are. I don't know why reality is structured in that way, though. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Vibroverse

My thoughts are of value to you, because they're not already inside of you. My thoughts, like Western philosophy, provide insight into the content of reality; of the way we cognize and understand 'things' in reality. Being is beyond content; beyond cognition, beyond understanding. It's the groundless ground. You can't use it to build anything. It's an infinite free fall. It's just there, and of course, denying it is stupid, but you shouldn't use it to deny philosophy.


Intrinsic joy is revealed in the marriage of meaning and being.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This cartoon actually does a decent job in giving one a sense of some of Alfred North Whitehead's ideas.

( Fun fact: Whitehead actually knew Einstein, and much of Whitehead's philosophy is an attempt to integrate 20th century revolutions in science into a construct aware framework)

 


"The mind is inherently embodied.
Thought is mostly unconscious.
Abstract concepts are largely metaphorical." - George Lakoff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DocWatts said:

This cartoon actually does a decent job in giving one a sense of some of Alfred North Whitehead's ideas.

( Fun fact: Whitehead actually knew Einstein, and much of Whitehead's philosophy is an attempt to integrate 20th century revolutions in science into a construct aware framework)

 

Makes sense. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But, in general, philosophy seems to be another form of stupidity like all other human endeavors and thinkings. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Vibroverse said:

But, in general, philosophy seems to be another form of stupidity like all other human endeavors and thinkings. 

What is not stupid then?


Intrinsic joy is revealed in the marriage of meaning and being.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

What is not stupid then?

Yeah, you're right. Well, sorry, I think there have been great thinkers in western philosophy when I'm thinking with a clear mind, but it can seem to be complicated when you look at it with an unclear mind, I guess, as you said, in a sense, like everything else. 

You know, then, yeah, I myself am also a part of the cosmic stupidity. But yeah, I feel mad at those guys when I'm in an angry mode, I guess, and it is not really about them, but it is about my perception of them, at least to a great extent, really. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Vibroverse said:

Yeah, you're right. Well, sorry, I think there have been great thinkers in western philosophy when I'm thinking with a clear mind, but it can seem to be complicated when you look at it with an unclear mind, I guess, as you said, in a sense, like everything else. 

You know, then, yeah, I myself am also a part of the cosmic stupidity. But yeah, I feel mad at those guys when I'm in an angry mode, I guess, and it is not really about them, but it is about my perception of them, at least to a great extent, really. 

I mean what is your idea of non-stupidity?


Intrinsic joy is revealed in the marriage of meaning and being.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now