Truth Discussion Time - Page 55

If it was not obvious I was not talking about money, I was talking about knowing your true nature, underlying reality.
Wouldn't it make sense that to know something you need to put your mind to it? If you turned your mind inwards you would surely know your Self as you are, but each day, every day, most of the time really, you put your attention on things outside of yourself.

I agree asking is good but at some point, if you want to know your Self you must go within and explore what is there on your own.

Self-awareness is the truth, you are that Self, you are all that is, but you think you're body and mind, that's the problem. Roots of these beliefs go very deep, but there is no substance behind them, if you quiet your mind you will see.

{

On December 08 2017 13:53 napalm wrote: If it was not obvious I was not talking about money, I was talking about knowing your true nature, underlying reality. Wouldn't it make sense that to know something you need to put your mind to it? If you turned your mind inwards you would surely know your Self as you are, but each day, every day, most of the time really, you put your attention on things outside of yourself. I agree asking is good but at some point, if you want to know your Self you must go within and explore what is there on your own. Self-awareness is the truth, you are that Self, you are all that is, but you think you're body and mind, that's the problem. Roots of these beliefs go very deep, but there is no substance behind them, if you quiet your mind you will see.

That is great. Again I'll ask if that's true tho? Or just something you believe? Just like you said, about using your mind like Ramana maharishis "use a thorn to remove a thorn". That all implies tho that there's something to fix. What if, not saying this is true, because that I don't know, that's the beauty of that question. Tough to end up anywhere else if being honest. If the question is asked. What you then might find is alot of maybes, "if it's not true, then maybe.." wich is beautiful because it can potentially open things up, or even better completely kill or close "something". So I'll play along and potentially plant something (I'm all about agendas and serving people, apparantly). What if, this seeking inwards, for your so called true nature. Is the only thing keeping the apparant "you", separate from your "true nature". Why do you believe that there is such a thing as knowing that, or that it has to be known? What is missing from what is?

Doubt is something very beautiful, I'm not here to argue with beliefs (I believe ) because it seems absolutely hopeless.

Here is a 4 minute video called "the enlightened shoe", I might say that I'm posting it to open something up in you, believing that something is closed. Wich probably isn't true. Or that I'll enjoy reading your response, maybe not true either. I have to stick with I don't know for now, and Ieave the apparent speculative mind, speculating

Enjoy!

https://youtu.be/1ChPAO9AYzI

Edit: I want to ask again also, just to be extra annoying. Is there such a thing as knowing? Especially knowing your true nature?

I know how fun it is to sit in a cloud and just think abstractly, but once you do come down from the cloud -- because you don't really have a choice sometimes -- you see that knowing has biological roots. It is impossible not to know if you're a biological organism. Now you can doubt that you are an organism all you want as you type a post, but there will be many times when reality will remind you of what that means. I've already said that in a previous response to you longple, but your survival as an organism is predicated upon your ability to know things, so debating whether knowing is actually a thing is futile. You can think you're living in a simulation all you want, it makes absolutely no difference, because you still always have to act as if you're not in a simulation. How often do you doubt your own hunger, longple? Do you sit and wait for hours in order to know whether you are truly hungry or not? Does this have any meaning to you at all, or do you just reduce it all to the likelihood that it's just a dream where you feel hungry? Serious question.

My view on the second question is that while it's impossible not to know, it's equally impossible to totally know, because our biological selves do not allow us to have a knowledge of the totality. Our realities are constricted by our biology. Just think about how we can't see radiowaves, dark matter, UV light, infrared waves, etc. until we developed ways to detect them -- our instruments allowing us to extend our senses, in a way. The problem with the idea of "knowing your true nature as the underlying reality" runs into the same problem of the impossibility of knowing the totality. I think it's wrong -- if you think you've found your true self, the one true essence of reality, you're either saying this on faith, or you've only found a fragment which you mistake for the whole. There's no reason to exclude multiplicity and reduce it all to oneness. You couldn't possibly know about oneness if it hadn't become divided and knowable by you. Oneness on its own is empty, it's nothingness. The very statement that your true self is empty is one which contradicts itself, since knowledge and emptiness are antagonistic to each other. The only way to surmount this is to accept the apparent paradox that there is a circular or dialogical relationship between the one and the many that is irreducible to one or the other.

Yes, thank you! I might assume now but I get the sense that you think we disagree, I'm not sure we do or what I sense is "true" tho. Maybe we all fill in alot of blanks and that's, okey (might be a word to use)?

I would just add a seem or apparently where ever there are implied absolutes, like knowing. Even I get annoyed at myself for doing so at times so I wouldn't be surprised if your apparent experience is similar! (trying to be funny)

On December 08 2017 13:53 napalm wrote: If it was not obvious I was not talking about money, I was talking about knowing your true nature, underlying reality. Wouldn't it make sense that to know something you need to put your mind to it? If you turned your mind inwards you would surely know your Self as you are, but each day, every day, most of the time really, you put your attention on things outside of yourself. I agree asking is good but at some point, if you want to know your Self you must go within and explore what is there on your own. Self-awareness is the truth, you are that Self, you are all that is, but you think you're body and mind, that's the problem. Roots of these beliefs go very deep, but there is no substance behind them, if you quiet your mind you will see.

but how do you do that exactly? these are general words with no real guidance

What I can express is to ask (not expecting an explanation) why you add assumptions like sitting on a cloud, or being in a simulation or faith or anything? I want to express that showing my brain that I don't know just about anything is apparently very relaxing. I would even go as far as saying that functioning is even "better". I don't know for any future obviously, and I'm definitely not implying any drawn conclusions. One maybe a bit of a hokus pokus concept I could try to add instead of faith would be trust. A sense of just there not being an apparent conflict or argument with what's happening. Including tough lifesituations, I would again want to express the opposite. I might get ass cancer tomorrow and do a 180 turn tho, I just don't know. Sorry if I'm triggering with my language, it's not an intention.

On December 08 2017 17:28 dnagardi wrote: Show nested quote + On December 08 2017 13:53 napalm wrote: If it was not obvious I was not talking about money, I was talking about knowing your true nature, underlying reality. Wouldn't it make sense that to know something you need to put your mind to it? If you turned your mind inwards you would surely know your Self as you are, but each day, every day, most of the time really, you put your attention on things outside of yourself. I agree asking is good but at some point, if you want to know your Self you must go within and explore what is there on your own. Self-awareness is the truth, you are that Self, you are all that is, but you think you're body and mind, that's the problem. Roots of these beliefs go very deep, but there is no substance behind them, if you quiet your mind you will see. but how do you do that exactly? these are general words with no real guidance

Therapy if you have serious troubles.
Meditation, walking, hiking and other low energy activities, and alone/silent time.
Would say doing some low dosage of shrooms (less then 2 grams) alone can also help, although would have hard time recommending that to everyone, since effects could vary.

On December 08 2017 17:28 longple wrote: What I can express is to ask (not expecting an explanation) why you add assumptions like sitting on a cloud, or being in a simulation or faith or anything? I want to express that showing my brain that I don't know just about anything is apparently very relaxing. I would even go as far as saying that functioning is even "better". I don't know for any future obviously, and I'm definitely not implying any drawn conclusions. One maybe a bit of a hokus pokus concept I could try to add instead of faith would be trust. A sense of just there not being an apparent conflict or argument with what's happening. Including tough lifesituations, I would again want to express the opposite. I might get ass cancer tomorrow and do a 180 turn tho, I just don't know. Sorry if I'm triggering with my language, it's not an intention.

Asking "Is there such a thing as knowing?" is exactly the same as asking "is there such a thing as language?" or "is there such a thing as communication?". It's a non-question, it answers itself. If there wouldn't be knowing, language, communication, the question would not be possible. This is why I said that you are thinking too abstractly, "in a cloud", when you're at the point where you think even non-questions are relevant things to ask. If you find it therapeutic to do so then by all means do that, however you will probably drive everyone away unless they are also in the minority of people who are looking for the therapeutic benefits of extreme skepticism/solipsism.

I don't find your posts triggering at all. People get triggered by things that they take seriously, but I think a lot of the stuff you write is not serious, so it's impossible to be upset about it. It's at worst confusing, not frustrating. I think you're probably very confused and lost and you've stumbled upon this stuff and it acts as a kind of anchor for you right now. It's how you cope with modern information overload, and the suffering associated with striving in life. You spent many years just chasing after the next big hit of dopamine through gambling, chasing material success. Now you're taking the other extreme by doubting everything and surrendering as much of your humanity as possible. I had a close friend who did this and he wrote a blog/website that is very similar to this Anders guy you linked to. I've seen these types of posts so many times that I look at it as a cliché now. I think it's a phase that you'll eventually grow out of. I think you'll use your skepticism in a more useful way in the future. Those people you look up to now probably won't if they get enough attention; they'll assume the identity of the guru and make a living from it if they can. Beats working 9 to 5, 5d/w.

On December 08 2017 20:55 Loco wrote: Show nested quote + On December 08 2017 17:28 longple wrote: What I can express is to ask (not expecting an explanation) why you add assumptions like sitting on a cloud, or being in a simulation or faith or anything? I want to express that showing my brain that I don't know just about anything is apparently very relaxing. I would even go as far as saying that functioning is even "better". I don't know for any future obviously, and I'm definitely not implying any drawn conclusions. One maybe a bit of a hokus pokus concept I could try to add instead of faith would be trust. A sense of just there not being an apparent conflict or argument with what's happening. Including tough lifesituations, I would again want to express the opposite. I might get ass cancer tomorrow and do a 180 turn tho, I just don't know. Sorry if I'm triggering with my language, it's not an intention. Asking "Is there such a thing as knowing?" is exactly the same as asking "is there such a thing as language?" or "is there such a thing as communication?". It's a non-question, it answers itself. If there wouldn't be knowing, language, communication, the question would not be possible. This is why I said that you are thinking too abstractly, "in a cloud", when you're at the point where you think even non-questions are relevant things to ask. If you find it therapeutic to do so then by all means do that, however you will probably drive everyone away unless they are also in the minority of people who are looking for the therapeutic benefits of extreme skepticism/solipsism. I don't find your posts triggering at all. People get triggered by things that they take seriously, but I think a lot of the stuff you write is not serious, so it's impossible to be upset about it. It's at worst confusing, not frustrating. I think you're probably very confused and lost and you've stumbled upon this stuff and it acts as a kind of anchor for you right now. It's how you cope with modern information overload, and the suffering associated with striving in life. You spent many years just chasing after the next big hit of dopamine through gambling, chasing material success. Now you're taking the other extreme by doubting everything and surrendering as much of your humanity as possible. I had a close friend who did this and he wrote a blog/website that is very similar to this Anders guy you linked to. I've seen these types of posts so many times that I look at it as a cliché now. I think it's a phase that you'll eventually grow out of. I think you'll use your skepticism in a more useful way in the future. Those people you look up to now probably won't if they get enough attention; they'll assume the identity of the guru and make a living from it if they can. Beats working 9 to 5, 5d/w.

Everything you believe and write makes perfect sense and I want to thank you for expressing it, think that's awesome. Don't seem to have much more right now to put out here. I want to assure you that it's no worries, I also makes sense that it would drive people away or cause a lot of confusion, and it might, who knows! What seems to happen is that this sort of topic dosnt show up pretty much at all in most relationships or day to dayness, apparently. Alltho when in a thread like this, about "truth" with a poster like yourself it seems to happen all sorts of fireworks. Thanks again for reading and letting me go nuts

But I must admit few hold up to Alan Watts, Loco.

“The meaning of life is just to be alive. It is so plain and so obvious and so simple. And yet, everybody rushes around in a great panic as if it were necessary to achieve something beyond themselves." ? Alan Watts

I do like Watts, he has a lot of valuable things to say and most importantly he has a gift for reaching a wide audience, but he isn't a transdisciplinary thinker, so I can't consider him to be the greatest. I think transdisciplinarity is necessary in the complex world we live in, considering all of the great scientific discoveries we've made.

The meaning of life (or purpose) is not to just be alive, it is to maintain one's structure. It's a subtle difference but it has great implications. We rush to achieve things beyond ourselves precisely because the purpose of life is so plain and simple, that the human mind essentially revolts against it. “Man cannot endure his own littleness unless he can translate it into meaningfulness on the largest possible level.” (Ernest Becker)

It is also that man is born in a society where dominance hierarchies are intrinsic to it, and so to maintain your structure and have the best chance at reproducing, you have to "play the game" -- compete with others. Or at least, most do. Some wise people find a way out, they are the visionaries, the poets and philosophers (philosophers in the etymological sense -- the lovers of wisdom -- not those running academia today).

Loco,

How would you define "structure" as you used it here? What is there to maintain?

How do you feel about "those running academia today?"


Even though I have spurts of being a buddhist for 2 weeks, then a vegan for a month, and an existentialist for 2 weeks and so forth it feels like I have the strongest structure I have ever had. I know I have been grasping with this dominance hierarchies thing vs. finding a way out and I have not thought about it too much recently but I find myself further away from the dominance hierarchy path. I have a little money, I live with my parents, I have a used car that was given to me, I get to see my friends, I get to read philosophy and poetry. It's enough. Now, there are parts of me that want to just be unemployed so I could read philosophy all day and go on walks and paint while leeching off my parents but I think that is clearly not the right thing to do. There is another part of me that realizes I am more competent than what my current position is and I should start climbing the ladder simply to get my own place and make it easier in general but also to date and find a girlfriend not with the intention of buying stuff and having kids but just because I think it would be a worthwhile project. I do appreciate Heidegger and the idea of not fleeing from our authentic selves and not caring about the "they"? I may be in my parents' home for a while and I may never get a girlfriend and I hope to not care what "they" think about it but rather I agree that the project, the story is what is important. I would consider myself both a poet and a philosopher and that will always carry more weight than where I live, what car I drive, what kind fo shoes I have on. It goes further than Heidegger though. I love in the Sartre lecture when Roderick talks about "good and decent person with good and decent life is not good enough anymore" and he is right. That is the people getting caught up in the dominance hierarchies and what society has told them to do. Everyone is listening to the "they" and the "they" is flat out mistaken. I want to be my own human shaped by Nietzsche and Sartre with help from Derrida and everyone.

You know Loco that is a great post but it is not the final post. I could say that I think painters and musicians have a better way out than poets and philosophers. I like that you wrote it that way perhaps because I am in the latter category and not particularly in the former category although I wish I would be. An anti-dominance hierarchy revolutionary may be the best way out yet. I mean have you found a way out? How to cover expenses seems like one of the biggest difficulties for me. If I want more income I have to compete and attempt to climb a competence hierarchy. I could go the other way and sell my car and eat nothing but day old bread and hang out at the library all day. Get rides to AA meetings. I don't know how long that car money would last.

Dominance does not always equal competence regardless of what Peterson thinks.

In that context I was using the word to mean that we are biological structures seeking to be in a state of equilibrium (homeostasis). It is obviously not desired to be alive and degrading, our purpose is to maintain our structure.

Yes, I'm including the artists in there, I just forgot. It's not really possible in this day and age to live poetically at all times or even most of the time, at least not without having first spent a lot of time and energy trying to climb a dominance hierarchy (or being stuck in a hierarchy of submission). What matters most is that we don't only live prosaically (living only to survive), that's the priority. I guess for most people a feasible goal is to work towards something like Nietzsche's two-thirds of one's day being free to do as one pleases (though that is not how he said it, he stated that you are a slave if you don't have that much free time, no matter what it is you do). It might not be desirable to even get that full day. In my experience, it leads to anomie.

Don't have time to get into my feelings about academic philosophy right now. That'll be for another day.

Did Nietzsche mean two thirds of waking hours?

If you just take 16 hours a day that is 112 hours per week. 34 hour work week or less. That seems about right. I definitely feel like more of a slave at 40 hours than 30. In fact I requested to work 30 but the other prep cook moved so it can get a little tough in there with getting everything prepared even at 40 hours. It's a bummer. I guess there are bills, there is car maintenance, there are doctors' appointments, getting gas. A lot of that stuff is going to add up. I could see working 4 hours a day 5 days a week could be really cool if it were possible. There are parts of me that love going on a truly natural circadian rhythm where I am more or less going to bed a little later each night. It gets fucked up if I am waking up at 8pm and there is no one around to do stuff. That may have been some version of hell for me. Playing poker "all day" and then it being like 4am. It was not a problem when I was around other degen poker players but these days I like waking up with the sun and going to bed relatively early at like 10, 11, 12. I love being hit with the beams of 8am sun. I think this is the stuff you are talking about when you talk about structure, equilibrium, and homeostasis. But, Roderick talks about angst, anxiety, meaninglessness, anomie, dread, forlornness, despair as structure too. That is what we are trying to avoid.

Man who is prosaic is also poetic, meaning a man of fervor, involvement, love, ecstasy. - Morin

Who thought in 1916 that the Russian Army would fall apart and a small marginal Marxist party would disregard its own doctrine and precipitate a Communist revolution in October 1917?

Liberty tends to destroy equality; equality, if imposed, tends to destroy liberty; fraternity cannot be decreed or imposed, only encouraged.

Ive found 3 old credits on Audible available, Ive gone through 100s of books the last years on my kindle that have been non fiction, except for Atlas Shrugged (Really recommend, masterpiece!).
And I felt like fuck, Id like to use these 3 spots for fiction in the "must reads before dying" kind of category, and/or recommendations.

Ive asked around for a few recommendations, but Id like to ask if you guys who are somewhat active posting in this thread have any spontaneous fiction recommendations?

Sorry for hijacking this thread with a completely new topic, but here is where I wanted to ask.


Edit: 1 spot will def be dostojevski, as I havent read him but intended to for quite some time.

I would suggest Notes from the Underground to start with Dostoevsky. If you like that then next one could be Crime and Punishment. Demons is also excellent. The Idiot is so good too. I have not read The Brothers Karemezov yet so can not comment.

I am just going to go off the top of my head:

Money by Martin Amis. If you like that then read London Fields.

Metamorphosis by Kafka. This is a brilliant story about a man who wakes up one day as a bug. So good.

Death of Ivan Illych by Tolstoy. If you like that you absolutely have to read Anna Karenina.

Lolita by Vladimir Nabokov. All of his books in English are great.

Portrait of an Artist as a Young Man by James Joyce. If you like that then it might be time to tackle the masterpiece that is Ulysses.

Madame Bovary by Flaubert. There are like pages and pages of literary poetry in here it is breathtaking at times.

Dead Souls by Gogol. The Overcoat by Gogol. Gogol is pretty great. Kind of weird and funny and very inventive.

I think here are two that I read early that kind of spurned the possibility that literature can be great:

The Great Gatsby by Fitzgerald

The Sun Also Rises by Hemmingway

If you want to dip your toes into some existentialist stuff:

Nausea by Sartre

No Exit by Sartre

Waiting for Godot by Beckett

Endgame by Beckett

The Stranger by Camus

I hope the list is not overwhelming I just sort of went stream of consciousness there and figured you would have a lot of options or maybe a list to come back to if you liked one of the books or some of the books. My number one suggestion would be to read Notes from the Underground by Dostoevsky first. Then if you like it you can read the other Dostoevsky or really you can do whatever you like. There are so many great stories out there and so much spine tingle to be had.

Egocentrism maintains self-deception engendered by self-justification, self-glorification, and the propensity to project onto others, foreign or not, the cause of all ills.