I took 'Krishnamurti as homeboy' as a slight on both myself, and him. — Wayfarer

How is that a slight on you or him? I know you've found his work interesting, I suppose that must be because he isn't labelled an atheist and a nihilist on Wikipedia, otherwise you wouldn't have bothered with his work no? :s

I haven't, though he seems like someone I'd like. What do you suggest I read first? — Heister Eggcart

"The Trouble with Being Born" (if you want a more mature work) or "On the Heights of Despair" if you want an introductory work (also happens to be his first work). "Short History of Decay" and "The Fall Into Time" should be next.

Life's too long in my estimation! — Heister Eggcart

You should read Seneca's "On the Brevity of Life" then :P you said you liked Roman philosophy ;)

"The Trouble with Being Born" (if you want a more mature work) or "On the Heights of Despair" if you want an introductory work (also happens to be his first work). — Agustino

Ah, I've heard of that first one. I'll look into it (Y)

You should read Seneca's "On the Brevity of Life" then :P you said you liked Roman philosophy — Agustino

I have. I think that he'd agree with me that love is short and life is long. Seneca's gall is rather inspiring to me.

It simply doesn't interest me, and I don't see the point. Philosophy is supposed to be the cure, not the disease. — Wayfarer

Really now.... really...? What if philosophy is precisely the disease that must be cured? (Wittgenstein would agree ;) ) Do you remember the story of Bodhidharma and the Chinese King coming to him, troubled by his mind, and Bodhidharma saying "I have this stick with me, show me your mind and I will quiet it", and the King, afraid - there was this bearded guy with a stick, and he was all alone with him - spent some time, and said "there is no mind, all is quiet"?

What if what Cioran, Nietzsche et al. note - that the animals have something that we don't - what if that's true? What if what we're really looking for - paradise - is what we have lost when we ceased being like the animals? We are concerned about meaning (the meaning of death for example) - always seeking something - but the animals seek nothing, they are at peace in the moment - despite their awareness of the transience of life.

Ah, I've heard of that first one. I'll look into it (Y) — Heister Eggcart

I think you in particular would like him :P

I have. I think that he'd agree with me that love is short and life is long. Seneca's gall is rather inspiring to me. — Heister Eggcart

Why do you think that "love is short"? Have you read, for example, Augustine's Confessions to see how God's love plays a role in guiding his life, and ultimately changing him - always there with him even when he didn't see it?

Life wouldn't suck so much ass if love wasn't a rarity.

Life wouldn't suck so much ass if love wasn't a rarity. — Heister Eggcart

Hmm but what would you say to folks like Augustine, Aquinas, etc. who found God's love to be sufficient for life not to "suck"? Do you think they're wrong? God's love isn't sufficient?

What if what Cioran, Nietzsche et al. note - that the animals have something that we don't - what if that's true? What if what we're really looking for - paradise - is what we have lost when we ceased being like the animals? We are concerned about meaning (the meaning of death for example) - always seeking something - but the animals seek nothing, they are at peace in the moment - despite their awareness of the transience of life. — Agustino

I am very familiar with Zen literature, but it is often quoted out of context, as it was greatly popularised by the Beat generation and their successors in the 1950's and 60's. Read that way, seems to fit comfortably with existential or nihilist philosophy, but that is far from the truth of the matter. Zen Buddhism is still Buddhism, and the 'meta-narrative' of Buddhism is transcendence of the realm of samsara. And yes, Mahāyāna Buddhism asserts the 'non-duality of Samsara and Nirvāṇa' but again that is something that must be interpreted carefully. It is still a religion, concerned with transcendence of mundane (worldly) existence, without that dimension the sayings of Bodhidharma and the other Zen patriarchs are just desk-calendar slogans.

Nietszche, Schopenhauer, and many others interpreted the Buddhist philosophy of śūnyatā to mean 'voidness' or 'nothingness' (indeed there is a whole book on that subject, The Cult of Nothingness: The Philosophers and the Buddha, Roger-Pol Droit), but I think this is also based on a fundamental misconception, or rather, the absence of insight into any higher truth.

You've already told me you don't accept that there is any such thing. However, without that vertical dimension, what kind of philosophy can there be? I was given the book on Plato and Aristotle for Christmas, reading that again, the origin the Platonist tradition was with the idea of higher truth.

What if what Cioran, Nietzsche et al. note - that the animals have something that we don't - what if that's true? What if what we're really looking for - paradise - is what we have lost when we ceased being like the animals? — Agustino

They're only aware of 'down'. They're not aware of anything 'up'. That is a deficiency, not a virtue.

Those men did not live entirely solitary lives. One might like to think that they've nothing but "God's love" in their life, yet I'd argue they've merely ignored those tangible people in their life that actually support them.

Those men did not live entirely solitary lives. One might like to think that they've nothing but "God's love" in their life, yet I'd argue they've merely ignored those in their life that support them. — Heister Eggcart

Why do you think they ignored those in their life who supported them? For example, what would you have had St. Augustine do, for example, not to ignore those in his life who supported him?

I am very familiar with Zen literature, but it is often quoted out of context, as it was greatly popularised by the Beat generation and their successors in the 1950's and 60's. Read that way, seems to fit comfortably with existential or nihilist philosophy, but that is far from the truth of the matter. Zen Buddhism is still Buddhism, and the 'meta-narrative' of Buddhism is transcendence of the realm of samsara. And yes, Mahāyāna Buddhism asserts the 'non-duality of Samsara and Nirvāṇa' but again that is something that must be interpreted carefully. It is still a religion, concerned with transcendence of mundane (worldly) existence, without that dimension the sayings of Bodhidharma and the other Zen patriarchs are just desk-calendar slogans. — Wayfarer

Okay this may be so, but you haven't outlined a "correct understanding" either. If Samsara and Nirvana are non-dual - not two - how is it possible to talk of transcendence? There is no transcendence - the removal of ignorance isn't transcending anything, but merely understanding reality.

Nietszche, Schopenhauer, and many others interpreted the Buddhist philosophy of śūnyatā to mean 'voidness' or 'nothingness' (indeed there is a whole book on that subject, The Cult of Nothingness: The Philosophers and the Buddha, Roger-Pol Droit), but I think this is also based on a fundamental misconception, or rather, the absence of insight into any higher truth. — Wayfarer

I will look into this.

They're only aware of 'down'. They're not aware of anything 'up'. That is a deficiency, not a virtue. — Wayfarer

But what if down is really up? If man lost paradise, then down (back where man came from) is exactly where he must be going.

Why do you think they ignored those in their life who supported them? — Agustino

I didn't say that they did, only that priorities can be hard to straighten out.

what would you have had St. Augustine do — Agustino

fuck bitches

I didn't say that they did, only that priorities can be hard to straighten out. — Heister Eggcart

Sure so? This isn't to say that life is long and love is short... So I'm asking you what in particular grounds your belief regarding this.

fuck bitches — Heister Eggcart

>:O As far as I know he really only fucked one properly >:)

Sure so? This isn't to say that life is long and love is short... So I'm asking you what in particular grounds your belief regarding this. — Agustino

Life is hollow without love. Were this not true, then I'd have long ago rolled back over and into the grave from whence I came.

As far as I know he really only fucked one properly — Agustino

I don't get this joke. He fucked God? His hand? dafuq?

If Samsara and Nirvana are non-dual - not two - how is it possible to talk of transcendence? There is no transcendence - the removal of ignorance isn't transcending anything, but merely understanding reality. — Agustino

That's why it has to be interpreted carefully! If you read the early texts, the unique station of the Buddha is precisely transcendence of samsara, meaning, escape from the cycle of continued re-birth. This is stated precisely, dogmaticaly, and unequivocally.

According to Buddhist mythology, beings are continuously and unwillingly born into the six realms of existence. (This is where there is a strong parallel with Schopenhauer's 'Will' and the Buddhist 'tṛṣṇā', the 'thirst' or 'craving' which 'drives' the wheel of life-and-death.)

In the early schools, the difference between the life of ordinary mortals and that of the Buddha was posed as an absolute duality, with nothing whatever in common. It was one of the doctrinal innovations associated with the beginning of Mahāyāna that introduced the idea that they're not really separate realms, but the same realm seen from completely different perspectives. In a memorable aphorism, 'samsara is Nirvāṇa grasped, Nirvāṇa is samsara released'. It also introduced the idea of the bodhisattva, one who can be re-born voluntarily for the benefit of all beings, rather than 'escaping' into Nirvāṇa for once and for all. (Scholars see a possible cross-cultural influence between Buddhism and Christianity, via the silk road, in such ideas.)

Nevertheless release, Nirvāṇa, is central to all Buddhist traditions, and Nirvāṇa is release from rebirth into the 'six realms' caused by avidya/ignorance. For that reason, a central belief of Buddhists is that being born as a human is both very rare and extremely fortunate, because only in the human realm can you hear and practice the teachings.

There is no transcendence - the removal of ignorance isn't transcending anything, but merely understanding reality. — Agustino

Again, you say 'merely', as if 'understanding reality' is a trivial matter. Who, really, 'understands reality'?

Who, really, 'understands reality'? — Wayfarer

Maybe Cioran?

We are concerned about meaning (the meaning of death for example) - always seeking something - but the animals seek nothing, they are at peace in the moment - despite their awareness of the transience of life. — Agustino

Do you really believe this, that animals are at peace in the moment, seeking nothing? I conclude that you haven't spent much time observing animals. The only ones at peace, seeking nothing, are those animals bred, born, and raised for human consumption, like cattle being fattened for slaughter, we feed them into complacency.

That's the lamest excuse I've ever heard for refusing to publish one's work! :-}

What do you mean, Yon?

How can anyone steal it once you've published it?

It's not published merely by being on a philosophy forum. I am not, yet, a published poet, so I keep my work close to my tits, for good reason.

Once you've posted it it is effectively published. If you saw that someone had plagiarized it, it would be easy enough to demonstrate that you had already made it publicly available on this forum.

In any case what makes you think your poetry is so great that anyone would be tempted to pretend it is theirs? There's little money in poetry even for those most highly regarded.

As I interact with dogs I know that I am in the presence of another being, and another mind of some sort. The better the dog and person know each other, the more specific the dog's mental capacities seem. We observe them training us to bend to their needs and wishes. We try to train them and sometimes (quite often with some smart dogs) they just won't do what you want them to do. A dog trainer observed that very smart dogs are often difficult to live with because a sharper intelligence lies behind the eyes that never stop watching us.

Of course, they can't talk; they can, however, communicate some things with body language, whining, barking, nose poking, pawing, biting, cuddling, the cold shoulder, snarling, and so on. We have to make guesses about what they are thinking. That dogs think about their own deaths, or ours, is a leap which I find difficult to make. I like the idea of dogs thinking about death, I just don't think that actual evidence is possible. The behavior of elephants seems more convincing to me. Elephants live much longer than dogs--40 to 70 years, rather than a dog's 10 to 15. They have more time to think, more time to socialize their children.

We know that dogs are very good observers, and an unconscious, severely injured, or dead family member would be readily noticed. Their behavior repertoire is limited for responding to the novel experience of one of us suddenly dying. It would probably be similar to one of their family being gone too long -- they would find that disturbing. I've slipped on ice while walking our dog and she didn't seem to be worried about me -- she found my accident very stimulating. (Maybe she was just an unusually vindictive bitch.)

Another angle: Dogs are a predator species. Killing or disabling another animal and eating it is part of their repertoire. Whether they can be happy about both this death (dead rabbit) and unhappy about that death (dead family member) requires more complex thinking. I just don't know that we can demonstrate them either having or not having this complexity.

Once you've posted it it is effectively published. If you saw that someone had plagiarized it, it would be easy enough to demonstrate that you had already made it publicly available on this forum. — John

Not at all.

In any case what makes you think your poetry is so great that anyone would be tempted to pretend it is theirs? There's little money in poetry even for those most highly regarded. — John

It's not about whether it's good, bad, or mediocre. I have merely found it the most wise to keep my writing and "intellectual property" close to myself, and to not let it dangle out for all to see.

The Revenant by Billy Collins

I am the dog you put to sleep,
as you like to call the needle of oblivion,
come back to tell you this simple thing:
I never liked you - not one bit.

When I licked your face,
I thought of biting off your nose.
When I watched you toweling yourself dry,
I wanted to leap and unman you with a snap.

I resented the way you moved,
your lack of animal grace,
the way you would sit in a chair and eat,
a napkin on your lap, knife in your hand.

I would have run away,
but I was too weak, a trick you taught me
while I was learning to sit and heel,
and - greatest of insults - shake hands without a hand.

I admit the sight of the leash
would excite me
but only because it meant I was about
to smell things you had never touched.

You do not want to believe this,
but I have no reason to lie.
I hated the car, the rubber toys,
disliked your friends and, worse, your relatives.

The jingling of my tags drove me mad.
You always scratched me in the wrong place.
All I ever wanted from you
was food and fresh water in my metal bowls.

While you slept, I watched you breathe
as the moon rose in the sky.
It took all my strength
not to raise my head and howl.

Now I am free of the collar,
the yellow raincoat, monogrammed sweater,
the absurdity of your lawn,
and that is all you need to know about this place

except what you already supposed
and are glad it did not happen sooner -
that everyone here can read and write,
the dogs in poetry, the cats and the others in prose.

Not at all. — Heister Eggcart

Why do you say so?

The written world is a nasty place, man.

I still have no idea on what basis you think this. It hasn't been my experience at all. It sounds a tad paranoid to me.

Failing to be "paranoid" has not served me very well. I've simply chosen to be more reserved, so deal with it, Yon!