tadmjones
-
Posts
2053 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
49
Posts posted by tadmjones
-
-
He speaks to the separate aspects of the intellect from a much less than a hard materialist frame. I’ve haven’t read any of his books , but I’ve seen him speak about his ideas around the division and interactions between the hemispheres of the brain and the interplay between the characteristics of each.
I believe his first most talked about book was “The Master and His Emissary “
-
15 minutes ago, SocratesJr said:
I think neurology has the answer, but I don't like to depend on scientific materialism to explain these mysteries.
Do you follow Iain Mcgilchrist at all ?
-
22 minutes ago, StrictlyLogical said:
Some philosophers have said do not trust that existence exists, perhaps it is all illusion, but they fail to see they are asking you to ignore everything you have ever perceived, experienced, felt, indeed everything you know. The answer is to reject such a call to complete and utter ignorance with no evidence forming the basis for such abandonment, as groundlessly silly.
How does experience got wiped out by calling existence an illusion? The claim of illusion is describing the apprehension of the state of being as incomplete ( implying to human cognition ) , not a claim of a void, the 'illusion' is experienced. You are saying those philosophers are claiming existence does not exist, they are not saying it. They are not denying your perceptions , feelings and experiences by a call to ignore them, they are just qualifying them as to alignment with the 'really real' , as opposed to the 'real' of human cognition.
-
For non dual vedanta they are the same.
-
-
Truth is to fact as meaning is to definition?
I suspect agreement on that question is needed before unpacking either the definition or meaning of the concept and /or qua concept that there is a discernible referent. -
In principle , for the sake of argument, as a thought experiment etc ,yada, the external world could be mere appearance of a universe of entities whose attributes are not fully accessible to you the observer. Can an analogous proposition be made against awareness, could your awareness be manifest in other manner?
-
Sounds like Allister wears a red hat.
-
Thought I knew where I was going with that line, but I've lost the thread , lol. I went 'off' like half a full rooster.
-
3 hours ago, Boydstun said:
fully satisfied to know things as they are without trying to cast them as things as they are in themselves. Nothing is as it is in any way not standing in relations to things not itself.
Yours would be a strict materialism then , no ? It presupposes an ontologic discrete-ness, yes ?
-
So much fuckery and in plain sight. The FBI investigated whether or not the containers pulled out in the infamous video were suitcases or ‘bins’ fucking hell.
”it was the safest and most effective election to date”
-
54 minutes ago, KyaryPamyu said:
No doubt. But Monart's question was specifically about Advaita. The majority of Indians belong to the superstitious Shaivite and Vaishnavite denominations of Hindu religion. By contrast, Advaita is less religion and more philosophy. Popular with seekers but not with the masses.
Yes as to the level of indigenous adherents, but Shankarya widely associated with Advaita is a cultural touchstone because of his purported( various historical disputes with crediting) realignment of Vedic traditions in the sense of establishing Indian nationhood. Vikekananda called on that history in his advocacy of ending the British mandate.
Kind of like in the US everybody 'knows' George Washington, but they aren't all or even many freemasons, lol.
But also I think you are right in the that the philosophy is more known among seekers, just my fanboy buttons getting pushed, lol
-
6 hours ago, KyaryPamyu said:
Advaita is less influential in India than Objectivism is in the West. It differs from Objectivism in that it's not a full "system", so no ethics or politics is involved. In other words, it's pure metaphysics. Further, it's not meant to amend any common-sense facts, but only to situate those facts into their wider context (the Absolute). I suppose you could say that Advaita Vedanta is practically useless, much like poetry is practically useless. But in a deeper sense, both are "useful" in that they enrich our experience of regular things.
I'd say the "collection" part is crucial for differentiating Rand's position from others. No one (except Gorgias) disagrees that something exists. But they've been fighting for millennia over what exists.
I've just recently become familiar with Advaita and Indian philosophies/religions in general , and obviously a little infatuated lol. But I think I'd say that India is more aware of, and the myriad adjacent traditions and religious schools and their impact culturally on Indian society as a whole is probably bigger than O'ism is in the west.
The 'guy' that introduced the US to all things Hindu, Swami Vivekananda, made a big splash at the world expo in Chicago in 1893 and set up Vedanta societies in America. He was also culturally and politically effective in the Indian nationalist movement.
A quasi mythical personality credited with establishing Advaita Vedanta , Adi Shankaryra, just had a 108 foot tall statue installed at the historic site where it is said he taught . And apparently there is some kind of political strife involved with additional funding for more commemoration at the site, grumblings that can effect even Modi , if I'm seeing it right.
-
3 hours ago, monart said:
Thanks for elaborating. From your explanation, I can understand (somewhat) how this perspective may heighten and concentrate one's grasp of the whole (undivided) Self/Consciousness -- as long as I keep in mind that Consciousness is consciousness of Existence, and is not only or primarily consciousness of itself, without existence being there at all.
Atman is Brahman
-
27 minutes ago, necrovore said:
In the above quote, Ayn Rand lists a series of facts, but she does not do any deduction, she does not apply any abstract principle, so there cannot be any "fallacy."
Also, you won't get anywhere by starting with Kant. A valid argument starts with reality -- not in the middle of anyone's philosophy (Kant's or Rand's).
My understanding is that Kant's noumenal realm was just a space that he intended to be filled with faith and Christianity. He himself claims there is no way to reach it from reality, which is why he thinks faith is necessary, but that need for faith is probably why more secular-minded philosophers rejected it.
However, it doesn't matter, because Rand's philosophy doesn't depend on Kant at all. Her arguments against Kant are a sideshow made necessary only by the popularity of Kant; her philosophy stands on its own even without those arguments (and without Kant).
I know nothing about academic philosophy , what with all the citing and whatnot. But I think I understand that Rand was not an academic and , I further assume that given the volumes of critical and comparative works on philosophy that few are pointed toward Rand.
Is it true that none of Rand’s conclusions or arguments are in anway similar to Kant’s arguments or conclusions? No original ideas of Kant would or could have been incorporated into any of Rand’s formulations, ideas that Rand may not have considered attributable to Kant? -
22 hours ago, monart said:
How does that help your quest for the self's "tie-in" to objective reality? May not there be risks that "consciousness centered inquiries" could lead to a metaphysical subjectivism of primacy of consciousness, and away from the objectivism of primacy of existence?
Advaita Vedanta starts with experience, awareness as primary and subjective. It says all experience involves a subject that is aware of an object and that finding the locus of the awareness is the finding of, or the realization of the self, the witness consciousness.
The analytic meditation technique they employ is called "neti, neti", when translated from Sanskrit it mostly means "not this, not that". To 'see' the locus of the consciousness you identify all of the subject/ object relationships in an 'act' of experience to discern the 'ultimate' subject/subjectivity.
An example would be to sit in front of a vase with a flower in it and analyze the experience of seeing the bloom. Right away it is obvious that the flower is not you it is an object of your awareness. You notice you are using your eyes to see the flower but that the 'seeing' isn't 'in the eyes'. You then notice the eyes 'convey' the visual image to the mind/brain for contemplation, discrimination and identification of the object. And then you notice that the experience of the knowing that you see the flower is the awareness of the object or product of the brain/mind. You can also notice that the awareness that 'sees' the flower, and all 'seen' things, is a static ever present locus. It was the same awareness prior to that particular experience of the flower and continues to be that locus, irrespective of the changing conditions and functioning of the eyes and mind.
In Advaita Vedanta Consciousness is: not the body, not the mind, not an object, not many and not two. Non dual.
-
4 hours ago, monart said:
How does that help your quest for the self's "tie-in" to objective reality? May not there be risks that "consciousness centered inquiries" could lead to a metaphysical subjectivism of primacy of consciousness, and away from the objectivism of primacy of existence?
A non dual perspective equates the ‘two’ , primacy is I think an epistemological category in Advaita Vedanta.
-
There are dualist schools of Hindu philosophy, but Advaita is non dual. For me the most attractive element is the realization that the Vedic philosophies/religions are consciousness centered inquiries.
-
But the pipe dude’s are business records , they are subject to federal scrutiny for ten years.
How is it Bragg has cause to scrutinize Trump Org documents , aren’t they just as private as the fittings guy’s? -
An owner of a speciality pipe fitting manufacture in Albany entered a grounds maintainance fee invoice as a supply invoice in his private records , should he be concerned ?
That statute sounds ripe for elasticity.
-
"In the course of my initial presentation during the debate, I quoted Miss Rand's statement (from "The Objectivist Ethics") that 'happiness is possible only to a rational man, the man who desires nothing but rational values and finds his joy in nothing but rational actions'. Could anyone ever be happy when held to this extreme standard? I asked. And scores of voices from the audience screamed back (somewhat to my surprise): Yes!!!" (294).
That reminded me of GK Chesterton, in the 2nd chapter of his Orthodoxy , presents his oft quoted aphorism "The madman is not the man who has lost his reason. The madman is the man who has lost everything except his reason".
And ends it with " But that transcendentalism by which all men live has primarily much the position of the sun in the sky. We are conscious of it as of a kind of splendid confusion; it is something both shining and shapeless, at once a blaze and a blur. But the circle of the moon is as clear and unmistakable, as recurrent and inevitable, as the circle of Euclid on a blackboard. For the moon is utterly reasonable; and the moon is the mother of lunatics and has given to them all her name. "
-
-
After a failing to instigate a race war , Covid! But still not a majority , go figure
-
2 hours ago, monart said:
My grasp of the integrated mind-body improvement of one's health and the self-realization of one's purpose through rational, productive living in consonance with objective reality, is satisfying and sufficient to link my self to Existence. In your quest, what in Vedic philosophies attracts you?
Their ruminations on consciousness and awareness. I'm extremely attracted to Advaita Vedanta.
Question about the value of life from another forum
in Ethics
Posted
How does Aristotle use ‘life’ ? As being , as the recognizable actions of being or the less sinew-y and more fundamental ground of experience of being?
It seems the the actuality of thought being life, would place life in awareness as such.