1st, if we hope to communicate now or in future, when, we have to use commonly agreed upon words. If you start by redefining common words either more narrowly (confines only to mystical experience) or a bit differently from our normal usage, we have to decide whether we want to take the time to learn your way of thinking and avoid reading your statements within the framework of our regular meanings. 2nd, I have no motivation to spend an inordinate amount of time reading a long tract of spiritual experience that may or may not be of interest to me or with which I may or may not have to agree. If you want to motivate us, write a short, succinct, clear summary of your ideas by creating a new thread. Then we can decide whether or not we want to invest the time and effort of reading and understanding your complete position and then decide whether to comment or not. P.S-Your preaching (I'm sorry to say this) sounds like Straw man- Dr. Deepak Chopra M.D, when he talks about such stuff (science+spirituality sandwiched). He writes nothing new but his ideas and communicating skill gives good entertainment for the intellectual minds all over the world.
If my posts are entertaining, then is was worth the effort. There is only one sentence about spiritual experience. "I know that awareness and schtum of the mind is coexistent. So one lives then 'his' real subject." It's no sandwich of spirituality and science. It's the attempt to motivate, if one finds illogical behavior in thinking (by assuming what's actually not conclusive), veiled by habits, to explore them further. One might come to there when the matter is I am or who am I. To be aware that when going further to move now to 'irrationality'. To be aware that anything that applies to logic might become invalid 'there'. To recognize that the claim for logic may be pointless 'there'. To recognize that common terms are not sufficient to communicate, beyond the habits of the mind. To know that there are cultural treasures, traditions which have this 'topic' ('Irrationality and mind'.) And finally that one should 'be' there where it's fine to him. Anything else I wrote are examples and some self-irony. I firstly did a logic mistake, a big one. I said that when I was younger I strictly had denied that 'Irrationality and mind' matter. But now I expect the opposite from others, that one can comprehend. A Koan or the story of Buddha I had posted never can be understood by common mechanisms of logic, but this I wanted. My bad. The options to go to there are always there, anyway. And they coexist with science and speech. There is one fact we have here, too. Both 'groups' of persons are in agreement with each others. One group is a small minority (habits). And when it comes that one group reflects the other, then issues come up. The 'reasons' for it I have tried to make clear. Thoughts are not suitable to open a door when there is a simple key available. That had been all, have a nice weekend @all.
I love the calmness of the night. There are different conditions of the mind during a day. Or in other words to explore the irrational the rational has to rest. At nighttime the rational has a weakness. Habits also. We use to sleep then normally.
Anything goes like that, Yen. As I said, this is the "appeal" and "infatuating nature" of "Post-Modernism", since it is unobliging, "against the terror of strict inference/deduction"... Irrationalism and Spiritualism, too - very similar, at least in this aspect... So, look, a challenge: could you also conform to Philosophy, not just Chemistry. please and save us some time... We could even have a debate, one day...
Only the type of thinking by which you came to these dichotomies and "versuses" is sterile, it seems to me...
Please sir, give me an enlighten example of a debate from the greatness of your mind...'cause as my father-in-law says "God put a few thistles along with a bush of roses..." (I'm the thistle in this case). P.S. The problem with humanity is/was/will be the fact that many follow the few without questioning first...it's like shoot first and ask later.
Did your ego make you the thistle ? I have looked at your posts for a while now. Your comments show that you are full of angst brought on by an ethnocentric bias. If you expect to convince people to agree with your side of an argument then you're fighting a losing battle sir, you go about it too crudely!
WTF are you on? Please, do tell, as I deffo wanna avoid it...http://forums.mydigitallife.net/vb4_style/smilies_default/rolleyes.gifhttp://forums.mydigitallife.net/vb4_style/smilies_default/biggrin.gifhttp://forums.mydigitallife.net/vb4_style/smilies_default/biggrin.png http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment Yes and...?!? You think I disagree or do not want it differently, in that sense? But for that to become reality majority of people (especially Amuuuricans! ) would need to get better educated and differently/better brought up, in a "moral" sense... In effect, regardless of one's profession, one would actually get a proper education in Humanities, as opposed to, for instance, you mumbling nonsense in a non-obliging manner, which is what you are doing in this thread... As in, spilling your bile all over people who you do not even understand at a minimal level, since you have no clue about any of the subject-matter, that you are trying to give us your "definitive and strong stance" on... Jeez, have you no shame?!? No self-insight?!?
WOW! Where's all this anger coming from? Is it from your heart or your mind? P.S. If you're defined by your profession...then all I can say is... P.S. If you would have had then have understood what I said during all this thread. But, I don't blame you 'cause the school system is so f.ucked up today...just a mind garbage and slavery obedience. P.S. If you're part of the majority it doesn't mean that you're right, does it? (for further insight see Matrix [1999]...oh, boy! Not again! ) P.S. It seems you have no idea what's behind such experiments... I'm on black tea. "Don't accept anything because was said by a master. Even though it reflects the truth, this truth is not your truth - because it is not the fruit of your own experience and thus, it doesn't belong to you. Experience the truth and then this will be yours. Don't look at the life of those who realized the truth, but in a way that the truth can be achieved."
Look no further than your very own posts - feel this anti-intellectual BS oozing from it and "fink"... If one isn't partially defined by what one does, i.e. if one is doing something (for life even) but doesn't enjoy it/feel it/think it at all - my sincere condolences... Seriously If only you had any - and I mean ANY!!! - grounds for this ridiculous condescension... Me a majority?!? Of what sort?!? Are you completely nah-nah now or what?!?http://forums.mydigitallife.net/vb4_style/smilies_default/rolleyes.gif Philosophers, at best, are a teeny-weeny persecuted minority in any epoch, on any continent, in any state, which brainy and frequently brave minority was regularly opposed to whatever the 'powers that be' crapped out of their mouths, but they also opposed the all too often brainless and heartless "majority", which was way too often blood-thirsty, vengeful and thoughtless, so WTF...?!? Seriously, you have NO CLUE about anything at all in regard to this debate and points raised here, so the best thing for you would be to butt out of this debate and just leave it be... Seriously, you are embarrassing yourself too badly for words... Unlike you, I would have taught these subjects to 17 and 18 year olds, so I have been properly trained in these subjects... Please, stop this nonsense and THINK before you slam another nail into your own proverbial "intellectual" coffin...... I doubt that - seriously... Your "mind" is way too rhapsodic, so let's say I have my doubts... For someone who "doesn't acknowledge 'authorities'" you sure as hell know how to quote...
First of all hello folks,i was on vacation and didn´t visit MDL for about 3 weeks I read a little about this special thread and i think more people would contribute here too,but there is a major problem here for me and i think for 98% of the other people too. The problem is i don´t understand 95% of the stuff that is said here,not that i don´t understand English,it´s just the way it´s written,toooooo philosophical. We need to write our thoughts in a way that all other people can understand it easily and try to keep it short and simple. Now to the topic,i didn´t read everything but how much i´ve got it looks like this: Yen,Socrate VS Sid,r29k,Gorski. I think none of us is correct and we will never figure out who is right,we are just writing our opinions based on what we experienced through life. But i have to say that i can´t understand Sid_16,Gorski that believe in this science stuff,i said this in the earlier posts too,you can´t just sit in front of the TV or Pc and listen to what other people say,without having your own opinion about life and stuff around it. It´s like, the scientist said,example Poo smells like chocolate,and because he said it i have to think the same way I don´t even listen to scientists or philosophers at all,why should i even,they are just normal humans like Me,Nodnar,Gorski... and don´t know more or less about life than me or you. Have to stop writing now will be back soon,with soon i mean very soon and will write more about this topic.
I could if: I had learned to what I should be conform, (established POVs, principles, definitions, theories, terms). Am I conform to Chemistry? When teaching theories, definitions and laws yes. When elaborating, researching, categorizing, not necessarily. What actually means to be conform? If one stays ever strictly conform then there would be no progress at all. To be conform means to think using established stencils. Why should I restrict myself here? This thread is not about western Philosophy. It's about Cogito ergo sum. Descartes famous words. What do they actually mean to us? It's about an observation and a conclusion. One can be conform to Philosophy here sure, but I guess if Cogito ergo sum should be meant for people and not for Philosophers only, then only a few can be conform to Philosophy. Each science has started with a simple observation. But to observe can everybody. The conclusions then are categorized. And one is not a scientist when born, one becomes a scientist. (adherent of science.) This means one uses then the conclusions of a established subject such like Philosophy.
As I said earlier, one should really read carefully what Hegel wrote about Newton, for instance... This is already a type of thinking, a philosophy, if you will and it ain't "unchallengeable"!!! So, you do have loads of presumptions, prejudices, if you want to put it that way, with which you approach the subject, which you were not trained in. But you want your voice not equally valid but especially protected and not validated by those who do know about it a bit more than you - and that is what is really "not on", if you know what I mean... It would be equivalent to me trying to give you a lesson in science, with a completely different model of thinking etc. - asking you to be "tolerant" (in effect, "don't you dare being critically minded to my critical approach to science"), whereas I would not ask of myself the same, i.e. I wouldn't exactly be "tolerant" of the current state of affairs in the area... I mean, you wouldn't stand it for a second, neither would other scientists, pouring buckets and buckets of cold water over anyone who would dare such an audacious move towards science and scientists... With lots of laughter, thrown in for good measure! And who would blame them? They (in some cases) put in almost their whole lives in, lots of time, effort, lots of themselves into it, and here comes an outsider, telling them what's what... Like fook would they tolerate it! And rightly so! "Show us that you understand what's going on in science and then offer a different model. Otherwise, we can't even talk." The same applies in philosophy! Sorry but... All else is pure BS... Puritanically pure! Critically yours...
Ignore all that is "inconvenient" and just plough on, eh? Ahem... You will certainly never wake up... Stay well!
Real life philosophy: "Before our white brothers arrived to make us civilized men, we didn't have any kind of prison. Because of this, we had no delinquents. Without a prison, there can be no delinquents. We had no locks nor keys and therefore among us there were no thieves. When someone was so poor that he couldn't afford a horse, a tent or a blanket, he would, in that case, receive it all as a gift. We were too uncivilized to give great importance to private property. We didn't know any kind of money and consequently, the value of a human being was not determined by his wealth. We had no written laws laid down, no lawyers, no politicians, therefore we were not able to cheat and swindle one another. We were really in bad shape before the white men arrived and I don't know how to explain how we were able to manage without these fundamental things that (so they tell us) are so necessary for a civilized society. John (Fire) Lame Deer Sioux Lakota - 1903-1976"