The Power of Now

[Demian]

I read The Power of Now by Eckhart Tolle in almost one sitting. To me, it was like a guidebook on Zen, although he claimed to have no allegience to any particular religion. In tone it was reminiscent of the books by Deepok Chopra or Wayne Dyer. I was wondering if anyone out there is familiar with Tolle (or these others) and what they think of them. Are these New Age prophets ushering in the Age of Aquarius or simply schlockmeisters seeking only to raise the profit margins on their books?

[Niamh]

Mod note As the text refared to in OP doesnt comply with religious Forum Rules (http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?t=15410)I'm moving this to Philosophy, were it can get a wider perspective.

[jon1jt]

I read The Power of Now by Eckhart Tolle in almost one sitting. To me, it was like a guidebook on Zen, although he claimed to have no allegience to any particular religion. In tone it was reminiscent of the books by Deepok Chopra or Wayne Dyer. I was wondering if anyone out there is familiar with Tolle (or these others) and what they think of them. Are these New Age prophets ushering in the Age of Aquarius or simply schlockmeisters seeking only to raise the profit margins on their books?

i never quite understood why they called them "New Age" books when the principles they espouse are watered- watered-down versions of philosophies that can be traced back as early as Indian philosophy. are we to think that the ideas are new, for a new age of thinkers? our age must have become more enlightened. the modern world developed the atomic bomb, television, and boxed cereals. we must be brilliant. ugh.

you read that book in one sitting because it doesn't demand the deepest part of yourself, your mind. it's purposely made as a quick read because any real contemplative engagement with the text would require you to read slowly and maybe even put the book down for a time.

i never heard of Tolle because i don't read those books. what i can tell you is Chopra, Dyer, and the rest of them are fake, phony, frauds. their allegiance is to the mighty dollar and the publishing houses that mass produce their garbage.

if direction and meaning of life is what you desire, i recommend that you stick with the ABC's philosophy book, Plato's Dialogues. Socrates will get you to think about your life differently, and maybe even ask you to read him a second or third time over the course of your life because there's so much to discover. and if you're really brave you'll read Plato's Phaedrus, a musing on love. :) once you have experienced the beauty of these great works, you will never go near the New Age section of a bookstore again.

[Demian]

You just can't beat the classics. I must admit that the majority of the classics in philosophy I've read have come from philosophy textbooks and the like. TV and mass media have given me a short attention span.

[Daniel A. C.]

On the other hand, many of the self help books like Wayne Dyer and the like help people to make some improvements in their lives in a way pretty unlikely to happen reading the classics of philosophy. I think a lot of people who dislike 'New Age' culture simply dislike the aesthetics of the genre; the ideas themselves are often reiterations of established spiritual practices and ideas. Most of these books are basically like the lectures or sermons you might hear at church, putting a new spin on old ideas.

[Demian]

It seems that more and more people are turning to these books along with 'self help' books as the power and community of the churches dissipates. We are all like an authority to ourselves. We are writing our own tomes in a script only we can decipher; an army of little Da Vinci's...

[blazeofglory]

I read The Power of Now by Eckhart Tolle in almost one sitting. To me, it was like a guidebook on Zen, although he claimed to have no allegience to any particular religion. In tone it was reminiscent of the books by Deepok Chopra or Wayne Dyer. I was wondering if anyone out there is familiar with Tolle (or these others) and what they think of them. Are these New Age prophets ushering in the Age of Aquarius or simply schlockmeisters seeking only to raise the profit margins on their books?

The very term sounds very exciting. I do not the book you are subscribing or th e idea you want to put forth, and in fact this clause the power of now is really great. For, now is the moment we are alive and are very much with the universe , and therefore we can do anything or the whole universe helps to fulfill our wish.

[NikolaiI]

Ooh, I love Zen.

[TheSeeker]

I think that the topic addressed by this book is one of the most important and fundamental issues in anybody's life (whether we are conscious of it or not). And as such, the book deserves a good reading and a deep analysis. The author mainly argues that we identify ourselves with our mind, which cannot function without time and therefore perceives the timeless Now as threatening. Furthermore, the mind is the source of sufferings in this world, since the past (which can only be perpetuated by the mind) contains a vast amount of residual pain and the future (which can only be created by the mind) is simply forever unfulfilled desires. And yet we all need the mind to function in this world. The author recommends that we stop associating ourselves with our mind, thus breaking the delusions created by time. In practice, this means a complete attention to, or awareness of, what happens in the present without the mind interfering and distorting that direct experience. This can only be achieved with a complete absence of fear, in particular the fear of losing our own identity (which is again strengthened by memory of the past accumulated in the mind, either consciously or unconsciously). In summary, the book may be inspirational for some. However, unless its reading is accompanied by a profound introspection into our own psyche, the importance of the message may not be fully grasped. I started reading the book but ended up reading myself.

[Daniel A. C.]

I used to think some things were good and others bad, especially in terms of books and opinions. More and more I now think that most things are useful in certain contexts, and that even really great things do have a limit to their value as well.

[Starving Buddha]

Enlightenment is taught in every religion. I studied Crowley and studied St. John of the Cross. Two polemically different perspectives... There are passages that you could not tell one from the other... It is all about reunion with the divine. Which is to say, shedding off corpreality and becoming pure light. We can only do this on a conscious level. So being in a human skin is the only opportunity. Tolle experienced a breaking away, a coming to terms with the eternal present, which is all there is: NOW. No future, no past, only NOW. Our minds project emotion onto the reality screen, and what is projected is reflected back. Enlightenment is coming to understand that what is done (in words, thoughts, and deeds) will come back on you. Perfection (like Christ or Buddha) is perfecting ones thoughts, words, and deeds so that negativity is abolished and only positivity comes back. "The kingdome of the lord is spread out before men and they don't see it..." Gospel of St. Thomas...

[Midas]

We are mind with a body, not body with a mind. Mind is the intangible, the 'energy' that connects us to a life that existed before 'we' arrived, and will be around after we are gone.

It is the only part of us that can really survive after death, if such a belief shared by many, is possible. The rest of us, the physical. we can see decays and goes back to earth from whence it came. The mind, or spirit, is invisible. Like electricity, it exists but we can't see it - only its effects if we attract, intentionally, or inadvertently, its power.

It is the 'mind' in another which really attracts us, if at first it was the physical that opened the door. Often we find that 'love' can remain long after the physical has declined from age, or destroyed by accident, or health. It is also our mind's ability to continue to see another person we loved as they used to be before their mind had been damaged by accident or disease.

So whether we see the world in 'now' terms, or not (I have not read the book, only people's comments here) we cannot exclude the mind. Mind is the key, and keys can open, and lock, in or out.

We cannot change the past, but thought applied there when necessary can be useful, however we cannot go back there, and we cannot dwell there physically, so, to be in mind too long where the body cannot be, can lead to an unbalanced life. That brings disharmony. As in music, it brings discord.

The present is not only what we are living NOW, we can change it. By that I mean we can change how we perceive it, and react to it, Like a computer we can reprogram ourselves to how we would like to be. While plastic surgery can change the physical, it needs a skilled surgeon, and plenty of money. But we can change our mind. That costs nothing, only needs a firm decision, and a clear visual plan in the mind.

What we will be tomorrow, is dependent on what we are, and do, today. Therefore, for our future it is necessary to get our 'now' life right. For our tomorrow, all too soon, becomes our 'NOW'.

[Hypercrit Htd]

James, do you like your life? When will you write your masterpiece?

I know you have a masterpiece. Oh please remember all that helps you to write it! Far be it for me to express any discontent. God wills what will be done and hath gladdened my heart in the process. Peace to all who come~

[JBI]

I haven't read this particular book, but New Age philosophy to me isn't even philosophy. It lacks discipline, and peer review. It has no methodology, and is essentially a long-winded sophism, and as said before, a watered down version of pre-existing philosophies, in the form of a self help book. For most of them, they seem to answer themselves. The key to success is writing a book on success, do that, and you've got money, and will be happier. The books offer in themselves no answers that haven't been stated, or that make any logical sense however, and result one to the loss of said dollars.

The problem with this stuff however, is that the East still hasn't entered the Western Canon at such a large level. Most people read classic philosophy, ending before contemporary times (text books I find stop somewhere around Derrida), and are ethnic biased. Because of this, people get away with mock-plagiarizing Taoism, Buddhism, Hinduism, and other eastern religious philosophies and disciplines.


As for this book, I have not read it so cannot fairly judge. But all this key to changing one's life is a complete logical fallacy. No person has any control over their life, simply because everything is pre-decided. Every choice one makes is an inevitable choice, being that, in accordance with the flow of time, with the exact same situation in parameters, each choice would have been made in the same way, time and time again, each action done in the exact same manner, each dice toss showing the exact same numbers. To say anyone has any control over their life is to say that the control is manifested in the person, and not the society as fueled by time. But the concept of knowing you have control is outside of the "controllers" hands. He was forced by fate to become someone who read the book, and therefore got control. The book merely does nothing.

If it makes you feel good, read these books, if it doesn't, save your money. As for philosophy, this sort of stuff isn't really philosophy, it is pseudo-philosophy to make people feel good. Real philosophy is usually quite depressing, since all signs point to nothing.

[CognitiveArtist]

Thanks TheSeeker, I am completely unfamiliar with this book and your summary has given me a sense of what it's about.

This idea of not associating with our mind I find bad philosophy. The mind is always there, involved in the world, it's not a yes or no question that a person makes to be a mind. This is a general caution I have about much eastern philosophy & religion, particularly Buddhism and it's nirvana, which promote the 'virtues' of detachment.
Of course we can't always be attaching and actively living with our mind/being, we have to relax now and again. But this idea of striving after a fear-less life I think tries to negate what human beings are. We attach to things and value things, we identify with them, as we are beings in the world. The idea of not forming attachments so there won't be anxiety over losing our attachments I find bizarre, not something I could think of as good. It reminds me of a "will to nothing". To repeat again we can't always be "in the moment" or attaching, we have to reflect and we have to relax/clear our mind. Promoting a general state of detachment though is too much, and it tries to negate the embodied mind in the world that we are.

[jgweed]

Ice cream cones without the ice cream.

[Hypercrit Htd]

Never read this books but it probably good book seeing some cults pick it up and it very popular. The only problems with cults is that they keep people going in circles instead of spiritual spiral which is better because the spiritual person need to expand their worldview not narrow it down to a few phrases which they think to explain how to live in every moment of every day. The problems with cults is that they lead peoples to become dependent on feeling good like being drug so thye reject whatever not like drug when they can get no fix. Religion not supposed to be all about feeling happy all the time thats why cults draw people in on false premises telling them that life is about feeling good and thats all.

[CognitiveArtist]

Ice cream cones without the ice cream.

Exactly. A more succinct and nicer version of my text :)

To advocate such sustained distancing from the mind is trying to take the humanity out of the human. Such advice is worthwhile if it provides temporary relaxation and detachment, but it's an impossible and inhuman lifestyle that the book seems to put forward. Detached lifestyles are a complete phenomenological breakdown, which also near mental illness.

[jgweed]

The very title alone of that book suggests a complete charade, as if now is anything permanent instead of a point between the past and future, both of which are more "powerful" than the fleeting now.

What we have is philosophy on the cheap, designed to be read by the very young and the very old, pandering to an intellectual self-indulgence, and earnestly discussed over coffee and cake at the local Barnes and Noble---
Oh look! Look! Look! See Aunt Em and Mrs. White DOING PHILOSOPHY! Aunt Em has a New Hat! O! Look! See the hat!

Fifty years ago, it was Dr. Norman Vincent Peale; today modernity requires the scattering of opinions that pretend to be ideas at $26.95 a book. And they are always happy ideas, described in philosophical-sounding words, that people can put in their pockets and pull out at a moment's notice. No one looses any sleep worrying about the contents, and in fact the whole idea of the book is to induce sleep, at least of a intellectual kind.

It is even worse among the young, tending towards mental self-indulgence as it is; instead of promoting a certain clarity in thinking and precision in using words, these books give them the pretense of "having a philosophy of life" while it allows them to brandish every philosophical catch-phrase at the drop of a hat or a swish of their Emo haircuts. Their enthusiasm for finding answers---and THIS is the secret of THEIR strength--- seems not only poorly served by such gush as the "power of now," but more importantly BETRAYED.







Philistines pandering to a

[Hypercrit Htd]

The gushing sound is most distinguishable joy over discontent. Oh oh oh! see what doing philosophy can do-it like ice scream you scream whiter than white. Happy happy BEWRAYED!

[Smoogles]

The very title alone of that book suggests a complete charade, as if now is anything permanent instead of a point between the past and future, both of which are more "powerful" than the fleeting now.

What we have is philosophy on the cheap, designed to be read by the very young and the very old, pandering to an intellectual self-indulgence, and earnestly discussed over coffee and cake at the local Barnes and Noble---
Oh look! Look! Look! See Aunt Em and Mrs. White DOING PHILOSOPHY! Aunt Em has a New Hat! O! Look! See the hat!

Fifty years ago, it was Dr. Norman Vincent Peale; today modernity requires the scattering of opinions that pretend to be ideas at $26.95 a book. And they are always happy ideas, described in philosophical-sounding words, that people can put in their pockets and pull out at a moment's notice. No one looses any sleep worrying about the contents, and in fact the whole idea of the book is to induce sleep, at least of a intellectual kind.

It is even worse among the young, tending towards mental self-indulgence as it is; instead of promoting a certain clarity in thinking and precision in using words, these books give them the pretense of "having a philosophy of life" while it allows them to brandish every philosophical catch-phrase at the drop of a hat or a swish of their Emo haircuts. Their enthusiasm for finding answers---and THIS is the secret of THEIR strength--- seems not only poorly served by such gush as the "power of now," but more importantly BETRAYED.







Philistines pandering to a

I am extremely young (16 years), I hope that my views are not influenced by my self want to become better than my colleges "be cool"; rather to better myself (to link reason and logic to all my choices in life, realize why I think the way I do) and improve my outlook on life also to, as my philosophy teacher would say, "Weed out the bad answers, and leave the rest as possibility." I have a genuine passion for philosophy and a thirst for knowledge unquenchable, hopefully you don't view me as an ignorant little kid whom is doing this just for the joy of being right. All in all I want to know the truth, and disprove the false.

[TheSeeker]

This idea of not associating with our mind I find bad philosophy. The mind is always there, involved in the world, it's not a yes or no question that a person makes to be a mind. This is a general caution I have about much eastern philosophy & religion, particularly Buddhism and it's nirvana, which promote the 'virtues' of detachment. Of course we can't always be attaching and actively living with our mind/being, we have to relax now and again. But this idea of striving after a fear-less life I think tries to negate what human beings are. We attach to things and value things, we identify with them, as we are beings in the world. The idea of not forming attachments so there won't be anxiety over losing our attachments I find bizarre, not something I could think of as good. It reminds me of a "will to nothing". To repeat again we can't always be "in the moment" or attaching, we have to reflect and we have to relax/clear our mind. Promoting a general state of detachment though is too much, and it tries to negate the embodied mind in the world that we are.

I agree with CognitiveArtist that we can't just disassociate ourselves from the mind. After all, the author of the book needed to use his mind in order to write it out. And we are all using our minds in order to participate in this forum. So using the mind to advocate not to associate with the mind seems to be a vain attempt.

However, I think that there may be a subtle message in the book, that we don't understand yet. I think that the main issue here is whether and how we can make the mind a tool at the service of ourselves (the ego), rather than leaving it running more or less by itself like an uncontrollable mechanical device, unconsciously powered by the ego. Living mindlessly does not mean putting one's life in danger by recklessness, but means paying full attention to the situation at hand without being disturbed by the reasoning of the mind when this is not necessary.

We would like to use the mind whenever we need it. And whenever we don't need it, we just want it to stay in the background and not to perturb our consciousness. In our daily life, if we do not demand an excessive level of material comfort, then beyond the time when the mind is needed (such as during professional activities, personal study, familial and social interactions, etc.), we would find that there is a large percentage of time during which the mind is not really needed but it comes into our consciousness by itself, by habit we could say. If you observe closely, you would find that the mind is really not needed for a large part of our time in most days.

I think that detachment (or not associating with the mind) is not an aim in itself, but an outcome of a state of consciousness. That state of consciousness is the realisation of being at one with our surroundings, especially with other beings. In orther words, we feel that we also exist outside our body and our mind, being connected with others. That empathy, which I think is also compassion in a broad sense, is a natural and spontaneous state (i.e., one does not 'cultivate' one's compassion) when one lives fully in the present, free from the disruption of the ego. Compassion is then naturally present in the background (our subconscious), since there is nothing else in ourselves. Everything one does in that state is the best action one could do at that time.

I think that this issue this is one of the most important questions in life, as it impacts our way of life.

[CognitiveArtist]

I agree with CognitiveArtist that we can't just disassociate ourselves from the mind. After all, the author of the book needed to use his mind in order to write it out. And we are all using our minds in order to participate in this forum. So using the mind to advocate not to associate with the mind seems to be a vain attempt.

However, I think that there may be a subtle message in the book, that we don't understand yet. I think that the main issue here is whether and how we can make the mind a tool at the service of ourselves (the ego), rather than leaving it running more or less by itself like an uncontrollable mechanical device, unconsciously powered by the ego. Living mindlessly does not mean putting one's life in danger by recklessness, but means paying full attention to the situation at hand without being disturbed by the reasoning of the mind when this is not necessary.

We would like to use the mind whenever we need it. And whenever we don't need it, we just want it to stay in the background and not to perturb our consciousness. In our daily life, if we do not demand an excessive level of material comfort, then beyond the time when the mind is needed (such as during professional activities, personal study, familial and social interactions, etc.), we would find that there is a large percentage of time during which the mind is not really needed but it comes into our consciousness by itself, by habit we could say. If you observe closely, you would find that the mind is really not needed for a large part of our time in most days.

I think that detachment (or not associating with the mind) is not an aim in itself, but an outcome of a state of consciousness. That state of consciousness is the realisation of being at one with our surroundings, especially with other beings. In orther words, we feel that we also exist outside our body and our mind, being connected with others. That empathy, which I think is also compassion in a broad sense, is a natural and spontaneous state (i.e., one does not 'cultivate' one's compassion) when one lives fully in the present, free from the disruption of the ego. Compassion is then naturally present in the background (our subconscious), since there is nothing else in ourselves. Everything one does in that state is the best action one could do at that time.

I think that this issue this is one of the most important questions in life, as it impacts our way of life.

You've touched on an interesting point. I'm still thinking it over, but it seems to be the question: should we always be reasoning & engaged with the world via our mind? Should we always be pursuing meaning, understanding, a firm grip on the world? I agree that the mind has strong reasoning abilities and think that the human being is for better or worse an interpreting animal, yet how much meaning we seek or how much time we should spend reasoning are important sides to our way of life.
I was thinking Sartre illustrated this point best, but on looking over his work I'll talk about it with Nietzsche. Nietzsche rethought ideas about two Greek gods Apollo (who roughly is the God of reason and order) and Dionysus (the god of intoxication and ecstasy). An Apollonian mind is concerned with forms, that is distinguishing something so it can be realised & understood "the direct understanding of form, all shapes speak to us, there is nothing indifferent or superfluous". Humans are very Apollonian as our minds so naturally categorise. Western culture moreover is very Apollonian, with science a prime cultural factor attempting to create an encyclopedia of forms whilst overlooking residual knowledge: that the forms we think of do not perfectly reflect things and reality.
Dionysus and the Dionysian are formlessness. There is no difference between me and the world (the self is 'abolished' or repressed) and the mind does not pursue trying to grasp things, understand them and interrogate them for meaning "in order to grasp this complete unleashing of all symbolic forces, man must already have reached that height of self-abandonment which seeks to express itself symbolically through those forces: so the dithyrambic servant of Dionysus will only be understood by those like him!". This doesn't mean a Dionysian mind is brain dead or psychologically blind, the Dionysian still functions in the world, also it keeps interpreting (as all minds always do). There is a paradox that a mind can be conscious and interpret in the world, yet be ignorant of forms and categories. A kind of chosen ignorance, keeping intellectual contemplation of out mind is done "now the world of nature is to be expressed in symbols: a new world of symbols is necessary, a symbolism of the body for once, not just the symbolism of the mouth". How things are initially experienced and felt is all important, not how things are understood.
I agree very much that people need to not always be engaged in the world, working through an environment of forms and concepts. Time to relax and detach form the jungle of symbols is important. Especially today, where there is such concern about efficient mastery, seeing everything function. To quote Heidegger:
Everything is functioning. That is precisely what is awesome, that everything functions, that the functioning propels everything more and more toward further functioning, and that technicity increasingly dislodges man and uproots him from the earth.The paradox of human life is that it seeks freedom and destiny, it wants forms and security yet it also wants formlessness and possibility. We aren't ourselves when we "reify" forms and live as if they are fixed and permanent. We need, therefore the culture also needs, opportunities to feel "detached" (which isn't my favourite word for it, too much baggage) which is hard in a world where science schools us how it is, and the media relentlessly tells us how it is. How to have moments free of imposing forms I do not well know, although I think it is something which each individual can cultivate and learn to do better, live a little Dionysian.

[Smoogles]

You've touched on an interesting point. I'm still thinking it over, but it seems to be the question: should we always be reasoning & engaged with the world via our mind? Should we always be pursuing meaning, understanding, a firm grip on the world? I agree that the mind has strong reasoning abilities and think that the human being is for better or worse an interpreting animal, yet how much meaning we seek or how much time we should spend reasoning are important sides to our way of life.
I was thinking Sartre illustrated this point best, but on looking over his work I'll talk about it with Nietzsche. Nietzsche rethought ideas about two Greek gods Apollo (who roughly is the God of reason and order) and Dionysus (the god of intoxication and ecstasy). An Apollonian mind is concerned with forms, that is distinguishing something so it can be realised & understood "the direct understanding of form, all shapes speak to us, there is nothing indifferent or superfluous". Humans are very Apollonian as our minds so naturally categorise. Western culture moreover is very Apollonian, with science a prime cultural factor attempting to create an encyclopedia of forms whilst overlooking residual knowledge: that the forms we think of do not perfectly reflect things and reality.
Dionysus and the Dionysian are formlessness. There is no difference between me and the world (the self is 'abolished' or repressed) and the mind does not pursue trying to grasp things, understand them and interrogate them for meaning "in order to grasp this complete unleashing of all symbolic forces, man must already have reached that height of self-abandonment which seeks to express itself symbolically through those forces: so the dithyrambic servant of Dionysus will only be understood by those like him!". This doesn't mean a Dionysian mind is brain dead or psychologically blind, the Dionysian still functions in the world, also it keeps interpreting (as all minds always do). There is a paradox that a mind can be conscious and interpret in the world, yet be ignorant of forms and categories. A kind of chosen ignorance, keeping intellectual contemplation of out mind is done "now the world of nature is to be expressed in symbols: a new world of symbols is necessary, a symbolism of the body for once, not just the symbolism of the mouth". How things are initially experienced and felt is all important, not how things are understood.
I agree very much that people need to not always be engaged in the world, working through an environment of forms and concepts. Time to relax and detach form the jungle of symbols is important. Especially today, where there is such concern about efficient mastery, seeing everything function. To quote Heidegger:The paradox of human life is that it seeks freedom and destiny, it wants forms and security yet it also wants formlessness and possibility. We aren't ourselves when we "reify" forms and live as if they are fixed and permanent. We need, therefore the culture also needs, opportunities to feel "detached" (which isn't my favourite word for it, too much baggage) which is hard in a world where science schools us how it is, and the media relentlessly tells us how it is. How to have moments free of imposing forms I do not well know, although I think it is something which each individual can cultivate and learn to do better, live a little Dionysian.

I can see what you mean about just accepting everything, but by nature we are "creatures of doubt" and we have a need to know the truth. To be careless about your world is to be careless about life and to do that you must cut out your most primative instinct. Relaxation is different from carelessness, everyone needs time to sit back and soak up the sun or whatever you do to relax. But we are on a never-ending voyage to knowledge and we are curious by nature, for every theory, there is an opposing theory, for every advancement, there's another obstacle to overcome to get to your next goal. It's our nature to achieve, it gives us a purpose to life; I would like to have a reason to exist, not to just merely exist, and I am sure everyone does. Life is not meant to be meaningless. And yes I believe people need a place for their head to rest easy, but once man has engaged in the pursuit of knowledge it is relentless. Humans also need to know there is more than just physical entities out there, that there is something detached from your body, what makes you, you. Comfort in the possibility of eternal life, and to know that physical isn't the only thing to experience. Abstractions in life contribute to this belief. I do not believe in forms or Plato's heaven, by the way.

[CognitiveArtist]

I can see what you mean about just accepting everything, but by nature we are "creatures of doubt" and we have a need to know the truth. To be careless about your world is to be careless about life and to do that you must cut out your most primative instinct. Relaxation is different from carelessness, everyone needs time to sit back and soak up the sun or whatever you do to relax. But we are on a never-ending voyage to knowledge and we are curious by nature, for every theory, there is an opposing theory, for every advancement, there's another obstacle to overcome to get to your next goal. It's our nature to achieve, it gives us a purpose to life; I would like to have a reason to exist, not to just merely exist, and I am sure everyone does. Life is not meant to be meaningless. And yes I believe people need a place for their head to rest easy, but once man has engaged in the pursuit of knowledge it is relentless. Humans also need to know there is more than just physical entities out there, that there is something detached from your body, what makes you, you. Comfort in the possibility of eternal life, and to know that physical isn't the only thing to experience. Abstractions in life contribute to this belief. I do not believe in forms or Plato's heaven, by the way.

You've once again reminded me of the problem of metaphysics, it's very hard to get rid of. Talking about human nature always leads to this dilemma. I'm trying to think of a life not troubled by metaphysics, which is trying to think of an existence without full presence (full presence being the grasping of meaning in it's entirety, see metaphysics of presence (http://books.google.com.au/books?id=UEJUdnejp64C&pg=PT309&client=firefox-a&source=gbs_toc_s&cad=1&sig=ACfU3U0NP12GpDnAhX5nCmLgg7zvo168oA#PPT285,M1)) .
The problem I have with your post is that it supposes such certainty about a particular body of thought and the world, that is it suggests a particular discourse (way of talking about the world) can finally represent the world. I'm hearing humanism in about all that you're saying, that we can actually progress, will something and make/achieve it, and reason is our central tool for such mastery (by extension science is capable of grasping, actually knowing the world & enabling progress). I'm happy to live a humanist life, most of the time, but this discourse or any other is no the apex of existence, and I hold a reduced Dionysianism to disclaim the ultimate ability of any discourse mastering the world, being able to catalogue and "really" know forms. I pretty much equate Dionysian "carelessness" with relaxation, I don't think relaxation is just 40 winks, some momentary lapse, in our life of being scientists: people who truly progress. I think the relaxation people need is to feel that things aren't important, or rather forms aren't real.
There are some underlying beliefs for why I believe what I believe. I don't believe in an ability to actually (pretty much objectively) describe reality. Further, I don't believe in there being real/objective progress or achievement. I believe in personal or subjective achievement, which I think is very important.
I think I'll just say a few words about an either/or you provide. "I would like to have a reason to exist, not to just merely exist, and I am sure everyone does. Life is not meant to be meaningless". There are no reasons to exist because there is no reason. Likewise life is not even meaningless, there is nothing that can truly be said about life. Another deep belief I hold is there is no truth (pretty much Truth with a capital t). I believe subjectivity is truth. I believe in a variation of existentialism, that meaning can still be grasped in a meaningless world.
I disagree that humans need to know there is more than physical entities out there. "There is no there there". Of course we'll think and juggle ideas/concepts and we'll often find appreciation in thinking.

[Smoogles]

You've once again reminded me of the problem of metaphysics, it's very hard to get rid of. Talking about human nature always leads to this dilemma. I'm trying to think of a life not troubled by metaphysics, which is trying to think of an existence without full presence (full presence being the grasping of meaning in it's entirety, see metaphysics of presence (http://books.google.com.au/books?id=UEJUdnejp64C&pg=PT309&client=firefox-a&source=gbs_toc_s&cad=1&sig=ACfU3U0NP12GpDnAhX5nCmLgg7zvo168oA#PPT285,M1)) .
The problem I have with your post is that it supposes such certainty about a particular body of thought and the world, that is it suggests a particular discourse (way of talking about the world) can finally represent the world. I'm hearing humanism in about all that you're saying, that we can actually progress, will something and make/achieve it, and reason is our central tool for such mastery (by extension science is capable of grasping, actually knowing the world & enabling progress). I'm happy to live a humanist life, most of the time, but this discourse or any other is no the apex of existence, and I hold a reduced Dionysianism to disclaim the ultimate ability of any discourse mastering the world, being able to catalogue and "really" know forms. I pretty much equate Dionysian "carelessness" with relaxation, I don't think relaxation is just 40 winks, some momentary lapse, in our life of being scientists: people who truly progress. I think the relaxation people need is to feel that things aren't important, or rather forms aren't real.
There are some underlying beliefs for why I believe what I believe. I don't believe in an ability to actually (pretty much objectively) describe reality. Further, I don't believe in there being real/objective progress or achievement. I believe in personal or subjective achievement, which I think is very important.
I think I'll just say a few words about an either/or you provide. "I would like to have a reason to exist, not to just merely exist, and I am sure everyone does. Life is not meant to be meaningless". There are no reasons to exist because there is no reason. Likewise life is not even meaningless, there is nothing that can truly be said about life. Another deep belief I hold is there is no truth (pretty much Truth with a capital t). I believe subjectivity is truth. I believe in a variation of existentialism, that meaning can still be grasped in a meaningless world.
I disagree that humans need to know there is more than physical entities out there. "There is no there there". Of course we'll think and juggle ideas/concepts and we'll often find appreciation in thinking.


(Are you a nihilist, anti-monist, or what?) Ahh I see, you want to see a perspective on life that escapes meta-physics... Well, let's see. First you would have to disprove the theory that life has meaning, if you were to relate nature to life then you would see the relation to dependency, everything leads to something, everything needs something to continue its existence or cause it. That's if you relate nature to philosophy like so many before have. It pretty much comes down to, different strokes for different folks. I am pretty sure if everyone was absolutely persuaded by morning that life was meaningless there would be no one to show up to work the next day, and a few billion suicides, no one can truly accept the theory that we are a meaningless existence, for that to be true then why would we have a survival instinct? (A silly question, but one none the less) I would not like to live a life of images, under the influence, and it is human instinct to want to know. How would you kill that instinct? You can't. And if you did, that wouldn't make us human anymore. What you are proposing sounds to me like a land of ignorant people who accept anything that is fed to them, because they have no reason to doubt what is being said, or they find no reason to care. This doesn't sound like humanity. Ignorance is Strength? That sounds familiar, Atheist should know what I am talking about. I can understand if you mean induced states of total relaxation, but is it truly possible to be free from forms, from images, from reality? Because even in your mind you picture what you have experienced from reality and you couldn't picture anything because you haven't experienced it yet, which would put us in a bind... How is it we can free ourselves from our surroundings? Forgive me, but this sounds to be pure belief, as you said, under-lying beliefs on beliefs.

[CognitiveArtist]

(Are you a nihilist, anti-monist, or what?) Ahh I see, you want to see a perspective on life that escapes meta-physics... Well, let's see. First you would have to disprove the theory that life has meaning, if you were to relate nature to life then you would see the relation to dependency, everything leads to something, everything needs something to continue its existence or cause it. That's if you relate nature to philosophy like so many before have. It pretty much comes down to, different strokes for different folks. I am pretty sure if everyone was absolutely persuaded by morning that life was meaningless there would be no one to show up to work the next day, and a few billion suicides, no one can truly accept the theory that we are a meaningless existence, for that to be true then why would we have a survival instinct? (A silly question, but one none the less) I would not like to live a life of images, under the influence, and it is human instinct to want to know. How would you kill that instinct? You can't. And if you did, that wouldn't make us human anymore. What you are proposing sounds to me like a land of ignorant people who accept anything that is fed to them, because they have no reason to doubt what is being said, or they find no reason to care. This doesn't sound like humanity. Ignorance is Strength? That sounds familiar, Atheist should know what I am talking about. I can understand if you mean induced states of total relaxation, but is it truly possible to be free from forms, from images, from reality? Because even in your mind you picture what you have experienced from reality and you couldn't picture anything because you haven't experienced it yet, which would put us in a bind... How is it we can free ourselves from our surroundings? Forgive me, but this sounds to be pure belief, as you said, under-lying beliefs on beliefs.

You're not reading my lines, between them or behind them. I don't have a particular philosophy, I am not a nihilist as I believe in ethics (although I don't think there are ethics , something akin to moral skepticism I hold. Further, I don't think ethics is about justification but motivation) and I'm not just an anti-monist but nearer to anti-realism or a postmodern metaphysics turn (in the Lyotardian sense). Not that I believe these signifiers will point you towards my thoughts and make sense of them, all else I've explained has suffered injustice.
I'm not about disproving the "theory" that life has meaning, or proving that life is meaningless. My point was there is no objective meaning. Christianity is wrong, science is wrong et cetera et cetera. If either is affirmed right, this starts up the game of metaphysics with full presences battling it out. How can you decide if the nature of life and reality is spiritual or scientific/atomic? As I further said this [objective!] lack of meaning is no problem, as people can still find life meaningful (a vague preliminary grasp of existentialism, that thing taught at the end of high school and the beginning of university would help).
Survival instinct, need to know the truth "our most primitive instinct" these ideas are refuted by much human behaviour. Suicide undermines the idea of survival instinct and the idea that curiosity or truth-seeking are universal is just inadequate. Many perpetuate in disinterest and don't care for knowledge. Moreover, what would be the quota of curiosity before a person could be diagnosed as human? I don't believe there is human nature. Sure we can outline a rough list of attributes which will fall in the middle of the bell curve and if you want to say people who suicide weren't "really" human, to maintain "the survival instinct" that's your decision.
Another point you're missing is the moderation I stressed. I don't think we should become Dionysian cultists and sing dithyrambs and perform pagan rituals, nor do I think everyone should become postmodern, dress in black, read experimental literature and appreciate bad poetry. "I'm happy to live a humanist life, most of the time", further science is has some handy conventions which are worth maintaining. There's no need for dropping language if one is anti-foundationalist or has an "incredulity towards metanarratives".
I'm not at all supposing fricking ignorance, I'm supporting a very fine reading. This naive criticism is the same that gets launched against deconstruction.
To repeat, I'm not advocating psychosis, complete detachment from reality, I'm advocating infrequent feeling & understanding which realises that everything we know is socially constructed. This is nothing against our knowledge, it doesn't become void, reiterating, but I believe it's an important break, where there is realisation that things can be doubted and there is room to play. I don't believe this claim to be universal, as there are none, but I think, like Heidegger and a herd of others who it would be in the very least [I]unreasonable to claim are ignorant or advocating ignorance. The idea that postmodern thought demands some kind of revolution is what people out of the know of it say. :banana:

[Smoogles]

You're not reading my lines, between them or behind them. I don't have a particular philosophy, I am not a nihilist as I believe in ethics (although I don't think there are ethics , something akin to moral skepticism I hold. Further, I don't think ethics is about justification but motivation) and I'm not just an anti-monist but nearer to anti-realism or a postmodern metaphysics turn (in the Lyotardian sense). Not that I believe these signifiers will point you towards my thoughts and make sense of them, all else I've explained has suffered injustice.
I'm not about disproving the "theory" that life has meaning, or proving that life is meaningless. My point was there is no objective meaning. Christianity is wrong, science is wrong et cetera et cetera. If either is affirmed right, this starts up the game of metaphysics with full presences battling it out. How can you decide if the nature of life and reality is spiritual or scientific/atomic? As I further said this [objective!] lack of meaning is no problem, as people can still find life meaningful (a vague preliminary grasp of existentialism, that thing taught at the end of high school and the beginning of university would help).
Survival instinct, need to know the truth "our most primitive instinct" these ideas are refuted by much human behaviour. Suicide undermines the idea of survival instinct and the idea that curiosity or truth-seeking are universal is just inadequate. Many perpetuate in disinterest and don't care for knowledge. Moreover, what would be the quota of curiosity before a person could be diagnosed as human? I don't believe there is human nature. Sure we can outline a rough list of attributes which will fall in the middle of the bell curve and if you want to say people who suicide weren't "really" human, to maintain "the survival instinct" that's your decision.
Another point you're missing is the moderation I stressed. I don't think we should become Dionysian cultists and sing dithyrambs and perform pagan rituals, nor do I think everyone should become postmodern, dress in black, read experimental literature and appreciate bad poetry. "I'm happy to live a humanist life, most of the time", further science is has some handy conventions which are worth maintaining. There's no need for dropping language if one is anti-foundationalist or has an "incredulity towards metanarratives".
I'm not at all supposing fricking ignorance, I'm supporting a very fine reading. This naive criticism is the same that gets launched against deconstruction.
To repeat, I'm not advocating psychosis, complete detachment from reality, I'm advocating infrequent feeling & understanding which realises that everything we know is socially constructed. This is nothing against our knowledge, it doesn't become void, reiterating, but I believe it's an important break, where there is realisation that things can be doubted and there is room to play. I don't believe this claim to be universal, as there are none, but I think, like Heidegger and a herd of others who it would be in the very least [I]unreasonable to claim are ignorant or advocating ignorance. The idea that postmodern thought demands some kind of revolution is what people out of the know of it say. :banana:


Oh I see... now i really do see. You believe in being ethical, but no ethics? That seems to rest in a grey area, but can be understood. Suicide, on the other hand, can be blamed for a mental, conditional, or environmental dysfunction, are there mental illnesses which affect the ability to exercise your instincts? Are there not places where you are not aloud to act out on your instincts? Yes, both physical and mental. Society can be to blame, and I sense you are leaning to a Jean-Jaeques Rousseau(Screw society, structure, go hippies etc.); but you contradict that when you say you don't believe in human nature... You say that people show disinterest in attaining knowledge, is this really true? I mean if you look back in ancient times people made tools? Why bother if gathering knowledge is un-interesting, because knowledge is in the best interest of a human being; it make life easier to get through, and it can give you a certain assertion of what you know to be true. Sometimes our notion of self-interest overrides the notion of disinterest in knowledge, so in that knowledge must be available to the human and a human must attain this in order to be functional in nomads world, farming, or today. You want people to become detached from this image of reality? To be able to break free and realize that there is doubt in the doubtless, then you would have to show me a reason why I should believe in anything other than reality, and a reason to doubt the doubtless. As far as my little mind can take me, I love solitude in life, to go outside and read a book, it is my escape; many people take breaks to realize that they don't question what is fed to them but rather they want to fill up their plate. But total detachment from reality would be autism. How can you disprove if the nature of life and reality is spiritual or scientific/atomic, how are you to question something if you have no proof at all that there is something to question? You are proving Descartes right... "We are creatures of doubt." and in that you seem to be contradicting your statement that there is no human nature. I see nothing else that doubts existence, reality. I understand your logic, believe me I do.

[CognitiveArtist]

Where to begin


How can you disprove if the nature of life and reality is spiritual or scientific/atomic, how are you to question something if you have no proof at all that there is something to question? Countering my rhetoric I find strange. The point I was making is the problem of metaphysics "what is the real nature of human life or reality?", there is no criteria you can appeal to. Richard Rorty said of it "the main problem with metaphysics is it's a game without rules", which is why universalist claims like the human instincts to survive and seek knowledge are a bad why of talking about things (be it human life or reality or anything). Some claims invoke a "final vocabulary", as Rorty says, which are problematic, they appeal to the thing-in-itself (the human = instinct to survive, instinct to seek knowledge). I don't think there is real real things, or things-in-themselves, if there were they would be useless because the mind could not reflect the actual essence of things and thus speak definitively like "the human is instincts of survival and seeking knowledge".
This does not mean we should stop talking about things. This is exactly the problem which you think lurks in my point. If knowledge is socially constructed, do away with it! Don't even use language! Live in the woodlands! The last sentence of my previous post made the point, "the idea that postmodern thought demands some kind of revolution" is wrong, it is thought by people who don't understand postmodern philosophy. Further, I did not advocate at all, as I haven't from the beginning, that people must constantly have in mind that all is socially constructed.
"I'm happy to live a humanist life, most of the time"Science & electricity (like using computers), education, learning about religions is all fine, they are all edifying and useful ways of talking and thinking about things. A lot of the time it is important to be Apollonian, live as if the forms or facts were real. Working as a cashier for example, someone doesn't have to keep in mind "this discourse mathematics and subsequently economics are elaborately detailed attempts to represent reality", you'd lousily do your job! As I said at the end of the first post in my 'series' "live a little Dionysian".

The point I was making with suicide, a phenomena which happens both due to biology and the environment is that this instinct to survive isn't universal. It's a useful discourse that of psychiatry & psychotherapy to say people generally don't want to kill themselves, and those with suicidal ideation who make plans to commit suicide are deviant, that is they have mental disorders (disorder itself is a medical term, it's just a useful way of talking about people who have trouble functioning in society and/or suffer significant stress/depression). I don't think mental disorders suppress the way or what people really are, as I don't think things have exact meanings or universal predicates (humans = instincts, reality = p, etc). This doesn't at all mean I want to abandon a discourse or vocabulary, like psychotherapy, I am a psychology student after all. There is no contradiction in my philosophy and education. I just don't believe in universals or absolutes. I'll often go for weeks on end studying the vocabulary of psychology, recognising and interacting with the forms (that is ideas, this set of symptoms means a person is depressed for example), yet I find it good to relax and clear my mind of these understandings. It's not completely ignoring all these forms in remembering the social construction of knowledge. It's just a break where there's relaxation and not hounding down forms & meanings (further, autism is the completely wrong term for an exaggerated dionysianism, that is detachment from forms).

That people are characteristically with an instinct of curiosity I deny on the basis that it makes a narrow definitive definition of what is a human. I don’t deny that there aren’t lots of curious people, I just deny that it is a universal property. There are lot’s of people who don’t even finish high school, yet alone go to university. Further there would be many who were never interested in either. To restate my unanswered point (which goes beyond my metaphysical critique), I don’t think curiosity can be defined, yet alone could we measure what exact amount of interest qualifies as curiosity (thus means this thing which is being curious is human).


You want people to become detached from this image of reality? Here, to revel in repetition, is the crux of the discussion as I see it. I think the occasional break where people feel (the Dionysian spirit is mainly about feeling) or in some manner realise (not necessarily with a conscious grasping of the idea) that all the things we know and do are just forms, that is socially constructed knowledge. I like your use of the word “image”, as it fits in with my thought. Reality, like nature or truth or objectivity are these vague terms which people can’t pin down. Trying to think about them most people, who haven’t marched through various books on contemporary philosophy, say they are pretty much the same (“reality, that is what’s real is pretty much what’s true, and what’s true is not just opinions… it’s what objectively true” e.g).


To be able to break free and realize that there is doubt in the doubtless, then you would have to show me a reason why I should believe in anything other than reality, and a reason to doubt the doubtless. Isn’t that the philosophical spirit? “The doubtless”, you’re jazzy wording for reality isn’t anything. What is reality? A useful commonsensical term, or form, which people use in everyday language which when thought about cannot be pinned down. To quote my one of my fav philosophers again, as Richard Rorty says (who is probably the best starting place for contemporary philosophy & postmodern philosophy for those not initiated):
the whole question of what's real and what's apparent is a bad question. You can ask about a real Rolex and a fake Rolex or real cream and non-dairy cream but you can't ask about reality in general. Real only has a sense when it's applied to something specific



You are proving Descartes right... "We are creatures of doubt." and in that you seem to be contradicting your statement that there is no human nature. I see nothing else that doubts existence, reality. I don’t think doubting is apart of human nature. In defining humanity I reject the claim that doubt is intrinsically what makes something human. First, I’m sure there are other animals we could test that doubt and they wouldn’t be experiencing “a bout of humanity". Second, on the more established ground about groundlessness, Wilfred Sellars' myth of the given undermines this idea that you can establish something metaphysical like human nature. I will exemplify this with your put forward candidate Descartes. Descartes thought that he could establish some firm metaphysical truth, an undeniable foundation. I think therefore I am, to use the cliché version. The thrust behind Sellars argument is, as I see it, that there is no knowledge to be “discovered”, there are no realisations of knowledge which aren't inferred (the common wording being no "noninferential justifications"). I’ll import an explanation which I think summarises this analytical philosophy better than I can
The myth of the given, is essentially the idea that people can objectively identify reality according to direct sense experience. This notion was critiqued considerably by Sellers in his essay. He claimed that all direct experience is interpreted subjectively and therefore it is impossible to say one can identify truth or reality reliably through it. When people experience or perceive something it is always through the lens of their particular cultural, biased, subjective view[their own language] that has long created before the direct experience therefore the interpretation of the facts are flawed and not objective. (source (http://www.integralworld.net/ishaq4.html))
The point is there results an infinite regress of concepts to explain other concepts. There is no given knowledge, it’s all particular or contingent, not universal or necessary. Descartes didn’t get anywhere when stating I think therefore I am, he got as far as solipsism making that axiom. He also had to state the mind and the body are made of different stuff (metaphysical claim), which caused a world of trouble, the infamous Cartesian dualism which contemporary psychology just dismisses without a thought. To overcome the myth of the given requires some firm point, which in his way Descartes sought out “Archimedes used to demand just one firm and immovable point in order to shift the entire earth; so I too can hope for great things if I can manage to find just one thing, however slight, that is certain and unshakable”. To solidify this point, I’ll reference the most capable commentary I could find
It is crucial that the foundationalist discover a kind of truth that can be known without inference. But there can be no bearers of truth value without judgment and judgment involves the application of concepts. But to apply a concept is to make a judgment about class membership, and to make a judgment about class membership always involves relating the thing about which the judgment is made to other paradigm members of the class. These judgments of relevant similarity will minimally involve beliefs about the past, and thus be inferential in character (assuming that we can have no “direct” access to facts about the past). (source (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/justep-foundational/#3))





To sum what I’ve been saying

{1} The occasional detachment from discourses, language games, vocabularies, whatever, which are piles of forms or concepts which we emerge in and live in is valuable. The occasional feeling and/or realisation that knowledge is socially constructed is valuable. This does not even require that knowledge is socially constructed. It is a statement about health and being, which this vacation from our day to day truths is good for, I contend.

{2} I argued that knowledge is in fact socially constructed. There is no full presence. There is metaphysics as metaphysics is very hard, if not impossible, to escape, I am not arguing against metaphysics per se, which I carefully stated in the beginning (“I'm trying to think of a life not troubled by metaphysics”).

{3} This follows closely upon 2. There is no such thing as reality, human nature or truth. Reality is the kingpin metaphysical full presence which I argue against. When people establish such things as what is the essence of the human life gets troublesome. Religious extremists commit terrible acts because they are convinced they know what things are really about, they know the nature of human beings and reality.
To conclude this piece I’ll quote a piece upon this postmodern thought of mine and it’s relevance to real world affairs. Further this will show why such appeals to universals, claiming what is reality and denying the social construction of knowledge is not only wrong, but potentially harmful


In November 2003, the staff of the Harvard-based online publication Perspective published an editorial that clearly differentiated between the Bush administration’s anti-scientific bias (which might be construed as postmodern but is really the result of a totalitarian desire to control all aspects of reality) and their unilateral worldview (which defies the implicit pluralism of postmodernism).

With all his rejection of truth and construction of alternative realities, Bush might well be said to be America’s first postmodern president. […] Right? Wrong. […] While the Bush Administration may be ostensibly postmodern in its rejection of science, it certainly is not postmodern in its rejection of every other moral, political, and economic framework other than its own. This worldview, which legitimizes a foreign policy defined by the mantra “with us or against us,” is also the basis for the Bush administration’s unapologetic denial of science. In the end, what is most troublesome is not the possibility that our leaders are abandoning scientific facts in favor of radical relativism. The real danger […] is that American leadership will remain so mired in its own absolutism that it becomes divorced from reality itself. (source (http://www2.hawaii.edu/~wessendo/Post911Drama.htm))