@TCM: You're correct. You don't need a deity to find joy in life. You just need a willingness to search for joy. If that means doing something nice for a stranger, or helping a friend, or even answering a question for someone on MDL, it's all good. I find that the reward for helping or showing kindness comes immediately. A smile, a hug, or even the knowledge that you made a difference in someone's life. To Me, that's a blessing. And if My actions inspire another person to do something kind for another, it's beautiful. In this world, all we have is each other. Trappings and material possessions are best enjoyed when shared with another. I have so much, but every day, I leave My house in search of the one thing that matters above all; Human companionship.
Don't get me wrong, Yen - but just hear me out, frankly and simply speaking, to the point: "I became familiar with the fact that it is awareness. Things don’t have a thought value." You became aware, not familiar. And that means thought, reflection. Awareness is nothing if not 'thought'. Simple awareness that they simply are and simply have legs or are simply thirsty or well fed - animals have, too. But ours is much more because we can reflect. Reflect on oneself - self-awareness. And onwards and upwards. This is the difference between us, Humans and the rest of Earthlings...
I have made the wording with intent, gorski. You are right, I absolutely agree. I am just adding the ‘new’ consciousness. And I think now to have got why there is misunderstanding at my posts. There is simple awareness (animals). We can reflect on ourselves by thinking. And we have an idea of ourselves. We can say consciousness can recognize ‘us’ as objects. But the ‘evolution’ does not end here. I mean direct awareness. It is not animal awareness (below of thinking). It is the ‘next step’ to rely on awareness again by separating human awareness and thinking. This does NOT mean to go back to animal consciousness. (Like most drugs like alcohol are doing) We are still capable of simple awareness, but we have also human mind/reason. We are now able of self-awareness literally. Focus there where things have not become yet. To ‘be’ the ‘real’ subject. I thought Hegel was pretty good with that but did not go far enough… The crucial thing is. The consciousness that is aware of thinking cannot be part of thoughts. This is the awareness I became familiar with. No ‘simple’ awareness (animal). It is the place of unconditioned creativity, no preconditions at all. All eastern meditations have this goal. To become aware of unconditioned consciousness itself. I have read a lot of misunderstandings which reflect this. The Easterners mean awareness of the pure subject The Westerners mean…ecstasy, feeling, animal awareness/instincts, trance..... How can I post without mysticism? Can you help me here? If it’s not possible I can live with it. If people think it is a delusion I can also.
As far as I am concerned, for what it's worth, this is better... However... The bottom line is - again, as far as I am concerned - that this is a mystical feeling, as it were... and here we differ. "All eastern meditations have this goal. To become aware of unconditioned consciousness itself." There is no such thing. Hegel is the master here! He even places the development in hitherto not considered medium in Philosophy: History. Subject-Object relationship is unassailable for us, Humans. We are who we are through our relationships (others, nature etc.). "I have read a lot of misunderstandings which reflect this. The Easterners mean awareness of the pure subject The Westerners mean…ecstasy, feeling, animal awareness/instincts, trance....." Not so, sorry. Again, Hegel is the law. At least for beginners in Philosophy (and it takes a lot of work to get there!). Later one gets to inter-subjectivity, the change of S-O paradigm into S-S... But let us leave it for another debate... Btw, Hegel went as far as one can go within this "classical" S-O relationship, so this you may have to re-visit, maybe... But good you know about it - it's rare!!! Latter developments go via Ch. S. Peirce (via obligatory Hegel studies in Germany ), G. H. Mead etc. to Habermas and co. Enjoy...
Hegel was limited in his approach. If a caveman doesn't see airplanes, this means they don't exist? Hegel is defined as a "philosopher of the mind" and that says it all. He defined his own limits. What is mind? It's funny how TCM tries to apply an attribute of the few (the so-called "religious" people) to many. That's scientific approach?
As I said earlier, rare is this cockiness of yours... If only you had real grounds for it... Now you are a philosopher of some standing, as well... I mean, really... You are doing yourself no favours here... Limit yourself to what you really know and reap the rewards... But this is... laughable... Sorry but... It just had to be said... And it's not an Anglo-American thing either! Many an American builds on Hegel... Ergo...
well, i am not very philosophical.. but when i read some philosophers in the german language [ books were cheaper in german,] it occurred to me that they failed to express themselves in any clear manner. long, long, sentences that rarely conveyed any real thought.. and every time when i see you take a stand, gorski, and every time i see yen doing the the same, i think east <-> west.. these things do not need to be isolated. it is just not wise to sit down on ones`ass on some ivory tower, i guess. just my two eurocents.
I don't have any grounds...I am. Philosopher, worker, teacher and so on...are just roles, masks, ego. You, above all, should know that persona [lat] = mask. Observe yourself during a day and you'll how many masks you change according with the environment you're in. Your own mind is your own limit. Then...laugh as hard and loud enough so Yourself can sing in joy. Illusions are build only on illusions.
@Gorski: I didn't. I have to be honest and admit that I hadn't even heard of Hegel before MDL. I've always felt the need to go beyond what the "books" say, with regard to My psyche. And I feel that the human psyche is always evolving. At least I'd like to believe that. When we lock ourselves into one way of thinking, we deprive ourselves of objectivity. Neither science, spirituality, nor philosophy will provide us with the answers by themselves. Rules are made to be bent and ultimately broken. Spirituality, and ultimately faith is something we cling to when we are faced with questions to which no sensible answers exist. And philosophy is a way of thinking about problems that does not involve any spiritual belief system. I feel that each of these intellectual pursuits should be examined, and a mindset should be developed that will allow us to come to an understanding of the nature of our lives, the world around us, and ultimately the universe in which We live. It's an iterative process. The longer we live, the better the chances that we'll get to see breakthroughs that answer previously unanswered questions. Until then, it's all conjecture and eloquent arguments.
I'd believe you, Socrate, if you'd replace "The" with "My" at the beginning of your sentence... And as for cheap platitudes: no time for that, my kids are ill and I keep being the guardian at night...
I agree with you. I am curious what Hegel would have said to ‚satori‘. If Hegel would be measure of all things humankind would never be free of fear of death. The fear of death predominates still in any human action. Without to overcome S-O dualism there will be no real evolution. Furthermore it would mean the end of human species. The works of western philosophers is intellectual work. Easterners rely to practical means, although there are theories. Or there are metaphors, or even Koans, means to keep discursive thinking aside. These are means of communication, but not of science, why? The funny thing is. One who knows what Satori is understands a metaphor about Satori at once. What would be more satisfying/freeing? To make efforts to study some Philosopher’s theories or to rely on cultural means that are PRACTICALLY able to access the real subject, that what you really are by showing up the illusions (what you not are)? And would it really matter when Philosophers/Scientists would say it is not conform to XY and it is a delusion? Hegel is interesting.. science is...for the intelect....but probably not for the subject, lol.
Sorry, I have no time now - but this is all incorrect. And frankly, I have no idea how you got to this. A very interesting way your brain works... I would say you have certain holes in your "knowledge"...
What is right and what is wrong? Where is up and where is down? Remember that you're a passenger on a spaceship that travels 30 km/s around a star...in freakin' SPACE!!! Now I wonder: am I up or am I down? Am I right or am I left? I'm in a freakin' galaxy somewhere...that I know only 5% out of it. Holy Moly and the jingle bells...
Errrmmmm, weeeellll, I don't know... perhaps first grade or maybe even pre-school...??? Back to the future...
Perhaps "It is irrelevant"... You are wrong. This is Heidegger you are talking about. After Hegel's death the comprehensive system got screwed up and divided. Marx got labour and struggle, Heidegger death and so on... Hegel claimed he overcame it in his Philosophy. Seriously speaking, I doubt anyone here is competent enough to say anything on the subject... not without becoming instantly laughable... Maybe anyone remembers inter-subjectivity I mentioned earlier? A bit of studying and... voila... Beats digging ditches, for sure... Oh, did anyone hear about Kant's dictum of "Practical Reason (Philosophy)"? As I offered earlier, "More mystifications, Vicar?" Ahem... Come again? The subject is Freedom and it has to be considered in relation to "necessity"... Not that much can be said of it today without Hegel, whether you know it or not... But...