Know Thyself?

@richrf,

Welcome ValueRanger,

I agree with you that the finite or physical self is a bit like a computer, albeit an organic computer far advanced on anything man can yet come near duplicating. However consciousness, consciousness of (as in consciousness of an object), and Awareness throw into this mix something far more ‘AWE/some,’ don’t you think?

Some of us here might even argue that knowing ‘Self’ is more than merely the accumulation of conceptual knowledge, or “Bigger than the sum of its parts.”

That being said, cybernetics is certainly a fascinating avenue of study.

If you study the human body, as I have, you will find other things to ponder over like hormones that carry messages (only a small part of what they do) and you might begin in part to see the body not only as an individual ego self, but rather a committee of individual consciousnesses as well, or even see us, the human animal, as a universe for these smaller minuscule beings such as mitochondria. (A tiny fellow living inside each cell.)

The brain definitely does have its feedback processes, (engrams or memory traces), and yet at the same time is able to manufacture or organically grow new synapses all of the time. Unlike a simple computer, the brain adapts rapidly without reprogramming, and also what a computer cannot seem to do, at least yet, it makes leaps called creativity. But I do go on. ; ^ }

Anyway we may be more than merely finite hardware and software. We may be actually be eternal. This certainly adds to the complexity if not a whole new dimension.

Genetic hardware, that’s a new one on me. Please explain. Thanx : ^ )

Subjectivity9

@richrf,

Consider that modular, scalar reality, is propagated by a uncertain~certain (uncertain is contained in the certainty set) range. The knowledge sets we choose to sustain, directly affect the following generational dialectical sets.

Any higher spiritual sets are sustainable in the mutually complimenting sets listed above, and here.

@richrf,

Rich,

Here is one for you. : ^ )

Quote: A friend read this to me this morning.

“Knowledge is knowing that a tomato is a fruit. Wisdom is having the good sense not to put it in a fruit salad.”

Subjectivity9

@Subjectivity9,

Subjectivity9;94424 wrote:

Rich,

Here is one for you. : ^ )

Quote: A friend read this to me this morning.

"Knowledge is knowing that a tomato is a fruit. Wisdom is having the good sense not to put it in a fruit salad."

Subjectivity9

Lots of people in other countries use tomatoes, with some sweeteners, as a fruit, and, for all I know, put them into fruit salad. Wisdom is knowing that tastes differ, and other people eat differently than you.

@Subjectivity9,

Subjectivity9;94424 wrote:

Rich,

Here is one for you. : ^ )

Quote: A friend read this to me this morning.

"Knowledge is knowing that a tomato is a fruit. Wisdom is having the good sense not to put it in a fruit salad."

Subjectivity9

:bigsmile: Very good! Thanks.

Rich

@richrf,

richrf;94429 wrote:

:bigsmile: Very good! Thanks.

Rich

Yes. I know some Koreans who sprinkle their tomatoes with sugar, and have them for dessert.

@richrf,

richrf;94377 wrote:

TT,

As you can see, your faith that there is no transcendental existence (there is no way of knowing one way or another) has given you purpose. We all create beliefs in order to suit our own way of viewing life. Some people believe in transcendental lives and this gives purpose. Others believe otherwise, and this gives purpose. I don't think it is possible to escape beliefs so best to respect each other's.

Rich

What does the fact of mortality have to do with the lack of faith in a transcendental existence?

Maybe I've forgotten what I've written elsewhere (which is entirely possible), but don't recall coming right out and saying, "There is no such thing as spirit or a transcendental existence." Perhaps you could find where I said that for me.

Perhaps you could also define what you mean by "transcendental existence" and "transcendental lives," as knowing your personal definition of these terms might help clear up some confusion on my part.

Thank you for your time,
Tick

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;94432 wrote:

Yes. I know some Koreans who sprinkle their tomatoes with sugar, and have them for dessert.

I am not surprised that what is considered wisdom will be different for different cultures. In any case, I think the quote was metaphorical.

Rich

@richrf,

Ken,

In the state of TN, where I presently abide, every year in late harvest the people here have a tomato fight. They get out there are throw tomatoes at each other, while laughing their heads off. (Much like a snowball fight.)

Can you spell abundance? : = )

Any old way, I don't imagine tomatoes will be added to are military budget, as a new weapon, real soon?

Subjectivity9

@TickTockMan,

TickTockMan;94433 wrote:

What does the fact of mortality have to do with the lack of faith in a transcendental existence?

None. Most people feel that soon or later they are going to die. The nice thing about transcendental existence is that one can quietly proceed with life without being in any undo rush to do everything in one life.

Rich

@richrf,

TT Man,

Yes, in my opinion there are conditions where love is best served by killing. This is very controversial I know. But my heart tells me I am right on this.

When I was very young my father came home from the Great War with a terrible disease, Multiple sclerosis. It is a wasting disease that slowly takes away everything physical as the myelin around your nerves dies. This short-circuits all of your nerves much like an expose wire.

My mother was both a very good nurse and afraid to lose him to death. He actually lingered longer that most.

Very often she kept me home from school in order to help with his care, because we were dirt poor. Our government in their infinite wisdom said it wasn’t service connected, calling for many court battles to finally win 100% disability after 10 years.

So I didn’t miss out any of it. I was right there at his bedside when other kids were out playing.

At the time it never dawned on me that anything could change these circumstances. I like the very young accepted things as they were and on top of that my upbringing was very Christian.

I witnessed the tortures of hell in my sweet father, bedsores, and tapeworms, and infection. If that is not enough, MS seems to have as one of its symptoms, depression. He actually thought that God was punishing him for going to war (WW2) instead of going to jail, which was his first intention because it conformed to his religious beliefs.

What were we talking about? Oh ya. I actually now believe in Mercy Killing.

Subjectivity9

@richrf,

Absolution,

I think that skeptics may say, “I don’t know”, but I bet what they mean is, “I don’t know yet.” (That is if many of them are also mystics, as I believe you mentioned they might be, earlier.)

Or perhaps what they actually mean, (ultimately), is that there is no way of which the human mind can quantify Ultimate Truth.

I think one of the reasons that some great minds don’t stop long enough to write down what they know is, because they enjoy the chase. (Like Diana, the huntress) By this I mean that they are themselves always seeking further, and putting their energies in that direction.

So that a person like Lao Tzu was said to have only written his little book of genius, when he was forced to. But this little masterpiece actually was jammed full of wisdom, and millions of people have based their lives upon what it said.

What if debate wasn’t for the purpose of finding out which side was right? What if the joy of debate was in the doing?

The reason I say this is based upon my own experience, which is similar in a way. I used to save what I wrote, because I thought it was well done and might help me in someway, if I read it again later. However when I did read it again, after awhile, it just didn’t have the same zest, the same flavor.

After a while I began to realize why this was the case. It wasn’t the product that was important to me, or the written page. The joy was in the doing. : ^ )

If something had an impact upon you, anything, I am sure it is worth seeing.

Elegance shows up in anything done impeccably. I believe that anyone who is into the marshal arts, will tell you of people who move in such a way that you can just see that they are in the zone. It is a quality of movement that has perfected itself.

I used to write poetry at one time. I would try to polish it, until it was like a jewel. I knew it was right, when if I added one syllable, or dared to take away one word, it would ruin it. When it was right, it seemed complete within itself.

Subjectivity9

@Subjectivity9,

Subjectivity9;94492 wrote:

Absolution,

I think that skeptics may say, "I don't know", but I bet what they mean is, "I don't know yet." (That is if many of them are also mystics, as I believe you mentioned they might be, earlier.)

Or perhaps what they actually mean, (ultimately), is that there is no way of which the human mind can quantify Ultimate Truth.

I think one of the reasons that some great minds don't stop long enough to write down what they know is, because they enjoy the chase. (Like Diana, the huntress) By this I mean that they are themselves always seeking further, and putting their energies in that direction.

So that a person like Lao Tzu was said to have only written his little book of genius, when he was forced to. But this little masterpiece actually was jammed full of wisdom, and millions of people have based their lives upon what it said.

What if debate wasn't for the purpose of finding out which side was right? What if the joy of debate was in the doing?

The reason I say this is based upon my own experience, which is similar in a way. I used to save what I wrote, because I thought it was well done and might help me in someway, if I read it again later. However when I did read it again, after awhile, it just didn't have the same zest, the same flavor.

After a while I began to realize why this was the case. It wasn't the product that was important to me, or the written page. The joy was in the doing. : ^ )

If something had an impact upon you, anything, I am sure it is worth seeing.

Elegance shows up in anything done impeccably. I believe that anyone who is into the marshal arts, will tell you of people who move in such a way that you can just see that they are in the zone. It is a quality of movement that has perfected itself.

I used to write poetry at one time. I would try to polish it, until it was like a jewel. I knew it was right, when if I added one syllable, or dared to take away one word, it would ruin it. When it was right, it seemed complete within itself.

Subjectivity9

Philosophical skepticism is the view that knowledge is impossible. Two different reasons are given for this view. 1. Since knowledge implies justification, no one can have sufficient justification to certify that he knows the truth. 2. Since knowledge implies truth, some skeptics claim that there is no truth, and therefore, no knowledge.

@richrf,

Hey TT Man,

I see death of the physical body not to be a curse, but rather to be a blessing. This is esp. true when people are exceedingly old or in intractable pain. (Intractable pain means, pain that is constant and can’t be either stopped or ameliorated by medicines.)

I am not threatened by my own death in the least, except to hope it will go easily. I also find it comforting that if life ever, for any reason, becomes unbearable, I can pull the plug. (As in the "right to die.")

The fact that we are going to die, like you say, points out what is wonderful about life. Death teaches us to appreciate what you have right now.

I guess the young have the joy of hoping. They hope for all of the wonderful things, and surprises that might happen right around the corner. They always want more.

As we age, however, and see the end all too clearly, we see that what we have right this minute is only temporary and we finally learn to drink deeply.

In a way, I think we do come to find “interest” (if not joy) in every moment, a little like the seasons. Even when I am in pain, I find pain interesting. I study it as not being me. It is more like energy traveling through me. It actually doesn’t hurt as much when I do this little meditation. I don't have to own the pain or identify with it.

(They are perfecting this method at a hospital up in Massachusetts.)

I also practice relaxing into it, not fighting it, which reduces pain even more. I am not sure that you could call this fun, but like I say it is interesting and it is teaching me things about myself that I appreciate learning.

I don’t think that it would be reasonable to expect ones self to be completely fearless. I think that fear is built in to us, like blinking if something gets in your eye. Excessive fear is however not necessary. Excessive fear is usually fear that hasn’t been thought out, and like you say “Put in its place.”

Very often, most of what we fear never happens.

Alexander the Great used to run out in front of his troops, when invading a city. This was because he completely believed in fate. He thought that ,when it was his turn to die nothing could save him. But until that day, nothing could kill him. So he was brave not because nothing could happen to him, but rather because everything couldn’t happen to him.

I am brave in this way. I know that I can only die once and that once is inevitable. So “Eat/drink/and be merry for tomorrow you die.”

Everything is more fun, if you don’t hold it too tightly.

Subjectivity9

@richrf,

So here is about the time to make a clarification on Skepticism. Academic Skepticism is the one that makes appeals to the unknowability of truth or the impossibilities of knowledge. It is the type of Skepticism that modern philosophers like to debate about, because for the Skeptics to make these statements they have to provide arguments, which philosophers can debate and try to undermine (to varying degrees of success that often end up in endless loops). And Skeptic that claims this tends to be swayed by the academic form in one way or another. To be clear the Academic form generally was raised by the Middle Academy, with philosophers like Carneades, and later continued with contributions of Agrippa. And there is a slew of modern philosophers who have also contributed and I might post one particular contribution one of these days. These Academic Skeptics can be summed in the viewpoint of "Nothing can be known except that nothing can be known". Cicero said that Socrates and himself also shared this viewpoint.

Then the Pyrrhonic Skeptics really did try to differentiate themselves from the Academics. So they knew of the general Academic arguments and wrote about them, as Sextus Empiricus did. But they really wanted to get rid of the "Nothing can be known except that nothing can be known" kind of view. Which is why Aenisidemus chose to build around Pyrrho's philosophy of suspending judgment on these matters. So in his writings Sextus explicitly tried avoiding claims of knowledge and truth, he simply says "Skeptics say this" when "a dogmatist says that" most often. And at one point he says Skeptics may initially have a justification for becoming a Skeptic, but then they realize that justification should be doubted as well or is not necessary, and it is like a ladder than burns itself after use. This is why they may simply say I don't know. But Subjectivity does bring up an interesting point with "I don't know yet". The academic skeptic would say "I don't know not yet nor never", but a pyrrhonic skeptic "I don't know yet but maybe never." This has been discussed by a modern philosopher Peter Suber.

So the original greek term for skeptic generally meant one who seeks or inquirer, and Sextus made a point to make it clear. But what Peter Suber says a Skeptic is the way he or she is because he or she has a great love for truth. And unwillingness to accept anything else forces he or she to become a Skeptic until he or she finds that truth. So this type of Skeptic would say "I don't know yet". Now I disagree with Peter Suber as I think a Skeptic just needs an admission of unknowing, and it does not matter how they get there, where if it is motivated by love of truth or simply having ignorance. So I am of a Skeptic that would write "I don't know" and wouldn't know what to put after. There is a chance that I could know, but I still don't know.

But ya with the debates, early Skeptics were criticized for putting too much meaning into truth and the goal of debates. But through this Skeptics were able to say there is no reason to really take them seriously in the first place. So it all depends which Skeptic you talk to in this regard lol. Such as a Skeptic who is in the process of affirming his or her philosophy, or a Skeptic who is in the mode of "seeking".

@Subjectivity9,

richrf;94460 wrote:

None. Most people feel that soon or later they are going to die. The nice thing about transcendental existence is that one can quietly proceed with life without being in any undo rush to do everything in one life.

Rich

Do you yourself feel like you're going to die some day, or do you know you are going to die some day?

I would still like to know your definition of transcendental existence.

Personally, I'm not sure that it is possible to have a genuine transcendental existence while you are still alive.

Subjectivity9;94509 wrote:

I don't think that it would be reasonable to expect ones self to be completely fearless. I think that fear is built in to us, like blinking if something gets in your eye. Excessive fear is however not necessary. Excessive fear is usually fear that hasn't been thought out, and like you say "Put in its place."

Complete fearlessness would be a liability, I think. It is built into us as a survival mechanism.
A sports psychologist whose name escapes me at the moment used to say that fear is just
an acronym for False Evidence Appearing Real. This seems a bit facile to me,
but not completely without merit as a way to approach certain types of fears and apprehensions.

Subjectivity9;94509 wrote:

Everything is more fun, if you don't hold it too tightly.

Then why are people always telling me I need to get a grip?

Regards,
Tock

@richrf,

Well Absolution,

What you have said here gives my mind a lot to chew on. : ^ /

Skepticism makes me think of another approach, what the Hindu’s call Neti/Neti (Not this/Not this.) A skeptics approach IMO isn’t so much a statement of truth, but rather a method to showing that other ‘statements of truth’ simply can’t stand up to close scrutiny.

Bodhidharma (5th century Buddhist monk crediting for bring Zen to China) spent a good number of years in a cave facing a wall and searching out truth. (I believe that this is a metaphor for going deeply into the mind in search of the truth and after years finally hitting a wall...no matter, anyway.) He claims finally to have found the Self or gotten Enlightened. On being questioned as to what he had finally found out, (or the actual question, "Who are you?") his now famous answer was, “I have no idea.”

Of course you have to understand how Zen talks to get a glimmer as to what he meant IMO. He said that, “Self isn’t an idea. But, I certainly have found it.”

As you may be beginning to see, much of my personal background is in Eastern Philosophy and Religions. So forgive me if I sound like a newcomer to these things, sometimes.

But let me ask you. It seems like although Plato was a disciple of Socrates, he too went Academic to some extent with his own system of hierarchy placing “THE GOOD” at the top. Or is it rather, Plato was breaking new ground beyond what can be known by mind and trying to describe the Essence.

Of course I have an opinion about that too. (I bet that surprises you, NOT!) ; ^ )

I see Plato stopping at describing the soul. Soul is not transcendent. Spirit is however transcedence Itself, or Pure Being, is even transcendent of the soul. I believe that Socrates saw this, and…the student Plato, fell short of the master in this case.

Yes the Skeptics if they perform their duty well, indeed must come full circle. They finally realize that any justification for doubting, as though doubting were a truth unto itself, must also be doubted. And even all justification for doing what they do remains suspect, as well. (When carried to the extreme.) So this in fact is a little like the symbolic snake, Ouroboros, eating his own tail.

This is not so far away from what some Mystics see as being the case. That this dream mind is a dualism that doesn’t really exist, isn't substantial enough to stand alone, that it is completely structured within imagination out of comparisons. They further say that nothing can stand by it self, but rather has as its very foundation what is referred to as being "Co-dependent arising" (Buddhist), or that every thing/mind object is in fact leaning against every other ideas, much like a house of cards.

Perhaps both the Skeptics and the Mystics are hoping that by pulling out or removing one card at a time as it is proven to be in error, that eventually this erroneous structure will “All fall down.” What is left standing will, more than likely, be the ‘Essential Truth,’ that cannot be touched.

And the skeptic might even add the addendum, “If anything remains standing.” Ah you Skeptics. ; ^ )

So in fact, maybe disrobing from everything you don’t know…

IS a form of Knowing... in the highest sense of knowing.

Subjectivity9

@TickTockMan,

TickTockMan;94539 wrote:

Do you yourself feel like you're going to die some day, or do you know you are going to die some day?

I would still like to know your definition of transcendental existence.

Personally, I'm not sure that it is possible to have a genuine transcendental existence while you are still alive.

Yes. I definitely feel that death is inevitable.

However, over time, I continue to get a deeper sense that there is an aspect of me (call it the Hun/Soul) that transcends a physical life. There seems to be clues all over. But, like any detective game, clues are not sufficient for certainty. It is still hidden and there is uncertainty.

The transcendental aspect is the aspect that is learning, and may continue to learn over multiple life times. The non-transcendental aspect is the physical being (Po) that definitely loses the ability to live at some point.

The sleeping state is a good metaphor for the transcendental aspect that is learning without any sense of the physical aspect. And then we wake up! (Birth?).

Rich

@Subjectivity9,

Subjectivity9;94509 wrote:

Alexander the Great used to run out in front of his troops, when invading a city. This was because he completely believed in fate. He thought that ,when it was his turn to die nothing could save him. But until that day, nothing could kill him. So he was brave not because nothing could happen to him, but rather because everything couldn't happen to him.

Subjectivity9

Of course, fatalism is false. People who take precautions are less likely to suffer, than people who do not. That is why we look both ways when we cross a busy street. What is supposed to be the difference between "nothing could happen to him", and "everything could not happen to him"? They mean the very same thing. Like, "No one is in the room", and "Everyone is not in the room".

@richrf,

TT Man,

Yes, fear is certainly a survival mechanism within the finite world.

But now let us approach fearlessness from another angle. Shall we?

Just what if you were transcendent, or 100% Realized that you were not in fact this body/mind, that ego has been identifying with? Wouldn’t this be a form of fearlessness?

Imagine this. You would ‘Realize’ that nothing could harm you. “Fire couldn’t burn you,” as it has been said.

Now this is not to say that you would foolishly, being within this manifestation at one level, walk in front of a bus to test out your invulnerability. This would be a misunderstanding of circumstances. The body/mind, contained within this dream life much like your nightly dreams, could be busted up, (Ouch!) with dream wounds.

When I was a kid, old timers used to call the flu, the grip. Do you think that is what they meant? “Get the flu.” That’s just mean! :^ )

Subjectivity9

Philosophy Forum

Quick Links

My Account

able2know