No, precisely not. 'none' is 'already' appearance. It is all reasoned in the process of perception. And it is about the unfamiliarity to ‘accept’ the full consequences. How should one ‘experience’ a timeless state when the experience itself takes time? In the timeless state there is no experience and no individual (one with an idea of oneself) who could make it! It takes a) time to create the idea of myself and b) time to perceive mein Ding (my object) to this idea. A timeless state means also no S/O dualism yet. If people now express that by dualistic means (a retrospective) ‘strange’ statements are the result. “One knows without the process of ‘knowing’"… From a retrospective in the time there was an individual who made the experience. From the perspective of timelessness there is none. There is nothing to get, nothing to achieve! Reality changes in relation of the perspective. Can you comprehend what I mean? Many 'intelectuals' are not willing to accept /cannot that the reality completely changes!!! IMHO the reason why western Philosophers did not do it is because it becomes ‘uncomfortable’. Because actually there is no need to have Philosophers to have an affinity to truth / the ’reality’ because reality is already what it is. I can only repeat there is a bunch of people who meditate. It is a practical practice to ‘study’ the process of perception. To become aware of creating time/location. The instance, the dualistic intellect/individual spirit can nothing ‘grasp’ which is timeless/now (being) because to it, it must had ‘happened’ or happen in the future. (had become or will become) It can grasp 'appearance' only. Gorski, weak….very weak… The attribute German is not a reason for it... it is you quoting all the German Philosophers…and they had problems with the 'time'..wasn't it Shakespeare who said: TIME, the bloody tyrant...
Maybe we are misunderstanding one another here? "Can you comprehend what I mean?" I have been teaching Philosophy on three different continents and spent alltogether 15 years in Indian ashrams, does that answer a few of your questions? "From a retrospective in the time there was an individual who made the experience. From the perspective of timelessness there is none.There is nothing to get, nothing to achieve! Reality changes in relation of the perspective." Of course that is correct. But maybe you ought take back this: "From the perspective of timelessness there is none.", not because it is actually wrong, but because it is meaningless, as you are not there at that moment, while when you type you have to be there. We are always in the world of experiences. You are not there in timelessness... If there actually is a "you", is quite another (very interesting) question, as I assume you know? Or to complete your quote: "There is nothing to get, nothing to achieve!" "And there is no one who could achieve anything." I now could bore you with a quote from Wittgenstein...right?
Having a grasp on the Kantian philosophy noumenal is self-contradictory. Nothing can grasp itself... nor can anything grasp another thing without interacting with it. To say that such is possible is internally inconsistent. To imagine a non-interactive aspect of something is to imagine the impossible... it would not be what we call reality if it didn't interact, since it would not be a sensible feature. We could have no knowledge of it since we couldn't even encounter it. We are noumena (as a whole, not introspecting... in other words, not when 'grasping' ourselves), we interpret things as phenomena. To examine something empirically is to create a phenomenal representation of it, essentially. As Kant was always pointing out, the phenomena are reality ..they're what anything we encounter will be to us, and by the nature of interaction they necessarily reflect those aspect of the noumena which matter.
Yen sir, we the humanbeing don't even see reality, we just see an image created in our minds. the eyes receive light radiation and a 2D image of our world, which is then interpreted/perceived and hence it became subjective (experience). However, much of the interpretation is correct, it is only when we look at things we cannot formulate in our minds there we make mistakes.
Well spoken Mr. Thomas. Maybe you can enlighten gorski on the subject, 'cause he derailed...a lot. Forget Wittgenstein. He was a troubled man. Born rich, suicide in the family...that can impact really hard on a modern man weak mind. If he wanted TO BE, all he had to do is TO BE. That was all. All the tools were at his disposal, but, instead, he choose to...write. Oh, boy! Really? Seriously? Listen to Thomas. You might actually learn something. @sid_16: forget about Kant. He couldn't tell distinguish right from left.
What, oh, illustrious Soccy: that in Philosophy there are various interpretations of the same issue, same author, various stages of his/her development, various books, various issues in a book etc. etc.??? As in, just like in Science... Welcome to Modernity!
.... Why you never give up ... just stop it, really. You and Soc. made more as clear you standpoint it's enough. No need to quote each other or waiting for a reaction, give other people the chance to kick into this discussion instead of flooding it with your opinion. Spoiler WE GET IT .... PS: You also not need to answer on this or quote this.
gorski, is mdl domain turned off, you will learn instantaneously what reality and what Illusion ... Ahaha ...
SOCRATE_MMXII, just grow up and do some homework and matured enough to post comment in a public thread. By bashing someone doesn't make your statement stand, instead you would be more persuasive if you post some reasonable arguments.
Interesting documentary there....hmmmm....I'd always prefer the truth I get from what I deduct..well mostly... [video=youtube_share;XO0pcWxcROI]https://youtu.be/XO0pcWxcROI[/video]
@BjourneMun: Agreed. Child, please go out and play. The weather is wonderful. You're incapable of understanding them even if they hit you over your head. So young and so...restless. Go...listen to the ramblings of Hawking or Neil Degrasse Tyson and you'll be happy to have discovered the hot water. @gorski: let me remind you something that you forgot, most likely, even though you're very proud of it: Philosophy is from φιλοσοφία (philosophia) = philos (lover of) + sophia (knowledge/wisdom). This demonstrates that the mad men you praise as "great philosophers" were just a bunch of idiots.That's all. Those writings are...horse manure. All of them: Descartes, Hegel, Kant...you name them. P.S. Read Hegel and then give us a quote of his... P.S2. If you want to understand what philosophy is, read the works of Marcus Aurelius (start with something easy), then move to Diogenes, Socrates, Thales. There are others, but if you read these and understand them, we can move on.
Please @all refrain from getting 'personal'... I have also a job as moderator here, thanks. Yes and AFAIK because of previous MDL discussions. His idea of Absolute is realized in the end as result of evolution, but this is made from the perspective of time (a retrospective) which is already 'appearance' of 'the absolute'. I 'wished' he would have made that clear. It is not found in a derivative (made in the future), but there where is no derivation 'from it'. That can be only right if 'in the end' (of evolution) = end of illusion of time. Hope you can stand this: And from the perspective of timelessness there is only this moment 'where' it can happen. .."does that answer a few of your questions?" Yes, and I guess I can post 'directly' without to appear as a spiritual freak. "not because it is actually wrong, but because it is meaningless, as you are not there at that moment" We have to be careful. 'That moment' IS timeless. It is more or less 'aware' when the awareness has focus on thoughts (past/future). It is meaningless or meaningful from the perspective of an individual who 'thinks' about timelessness = retrospective. The question is: How would you recognize an individual (by appearance) which is 'there' in timelessness? Appearance is tied to time. Or better : Who is the experiencer? If you say: I, a member of MDL who has got the username ThomasMann, have been in ashrams 15 years and taught Philosophy on 3 different continents, then you are mistaken. All these are thoughts and hence parts of THE experience itself. I guess that is conform to what you've said already. Anyway the answer is You are, but 'you' the subject, the experiencer who is prior to all experience but without whom there would be no experience. No 'you' no experience. "There is nothing to get, nothing to achieve!" "And there is no one who could achieve anything." Yes, because the subject is undifferentiated and to the timeless subject there is no time to achieve something. Or: You are already what/who you are. The experiencer makes experiences. The observer observes. At that 'he' always meets objects/appearance, but never him-Self. At Meditation which is BTW not a special time where one sits in a lotus position, one focusses at the present 'during life'. It is even from an intellectual perspective an approach that makes sense,goal is 'to figure' how the timeless moment 'becomes'. That what 'happens' when doing so is senseless by 'description' either way though. Because the mind cannot grasp the present, better said grasp it by a retrospective only. From this perspective one can say there are people who are chained to their 'original' way of perception (as you've said it is meaningless because of unawarenes), 'advanced' people who can choose focus when they 'recognize' to do so or people who ever are aware of the timeless subject from which 'anything' becomes. Wittgenstein: If this is 'only' an intellectual knowledge it 'means' nothing at all, it is meaningless as you've said because one is 'not there'. That does not mean this is inaccessible to humans, though. I guess you can stand what I have posted, lol... Yes, nothing wrong with it. So what do you think means reality for humans then? I mean if that would be 'all' then 'reality' is a thought (illusionary) object that humans always miss, how can we speak then of 'reality'?
There is no 'illusion' of time - time is our very reality, our medium as finite beings, trying to connect through it in Spirit, inter-generationally... So, you missed it... again... completely... And Soccy - sock it! Really...
As you probably well know, you cannot enlighten another being. If someone prefers to cling to his mind instead of waking up... that is his right, isn't it? As far as Mr W is concerned, I know his biography. I was onyl talking about that one sentence, that one should not talk about things, that cannot be said. But I did like his descision, to become a childrens teacher in a village. Come to think of it... maybe I like that because I am on a similar path?
Sorry… “'That moment' IS timeless.” Look at your sentence and see how absurd it is. It is either a moment, or it is timeless, o.k.? “How would you recognize an individual (by appearance) which is 'there' in timelessness?” There is no way, still, I have in my life met three men, who seemed to me enlightened… IF there is such a thing, which, and there you are right, I will and can never know. Timelessness to me is a glimpse in meditation, they (in my eyes) no longer leave that state… (all three are dead now) “Who is the experiencer?” As far as my understanding goes, I now believe that there is actually is no experiencer. But I do/can not know that, and in life I go ahead behaving as if there is one. Just like everyone else. Unless they are enlightened. And I also cannot know if such a state exists. (Do not blame me! YOU asked, I am simply answering) But now it gets interesting, the question that got me in trouble since my student days. ”Anyway the answer is You are, but 'you' the subject, the experiencer who is prior to all experience but without whom there would be no experience. No 'you' no experience.” That maybe your opinion and it is also human logic…. But how do you actually know that our human logic and the instrument we use for thinking, is actually adequate to the task of understanding these parts of existence? My point always was, that Descartes was wrong. What he and you say is, that first of all there was human logic before anything else existed, and THEN the universe unfolded as it did according to human logic! That always sounded childish to me…. So “No 'you' no experience.” may be logic, but does that mean it says something about the reality? (Which is the subject of this thread) You state: “The experiencer makes experiences.” J Krishnamurti said it clearest: The experiencer is the experience, no different from it. The experiencer only exists because there is an experience. On another note: For me W’s the talk of death is just stupid. No one is afraid of death, because once death is there, we are not, and as long as we are there, death is not. What we are afraid of is the process of dying. And rightly so! Its physical part is in most cases extreme suffering and pain, which tends to be totally ignored by the survivors, and the on a mental plain, where idiots may cling to a stupid religious believe, the less stupid ones have to deal with the fact, that they have not been what to them would be an eternity, then been for 80 years, and soon will never be again for another eternity. You will simply cease to exist, and for the others life goes on as before? What an insult!
Yen sir wrote; Humans perceive (or are able to catch) only a part of what is radiated from outside, not all, because human apparatus of cognising works only within a certain range or limits. And this fact has very important implications. Object in philosophy is the the target of an observation or an action. Subject is the observer or an agent.
True. So true... I thought maybe you can shed some light... Take him out of the dark or at least show him the door. Well, this shows his limitation. That's all. The fact that he choose to become a teacher in a village was his way of trying to redeem himself. He was torn apart and had no idea how to put himself together again. Meditation is the answer for that. Meditation and only meditation.