I do agree that some of the most beautiful moments 'are when we actually connect' with others, and, it is probably these make life bearable. I also agree that some of the dead writers can be 'good friends' and it is probably on this level that we turn to read the great philosophers and other writers of the past. A few dead singers, such as Hendrix and John Lennon also offer some wisdom and friendship, as we face unknown answers, too.

Hendrix and Lennon are great mentions. Some of the best times (the opposite of alienated and lonely times) I've had with other human beings involved listening to or making music. Do you like Bob Dylan ? He's a great synthesis of concept and sound, a critic of the world who also has a transcendent sense of humor.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8hr3Stnk8_k

Books on this topic are rare and usually difficult. My own is in the editing stage

Immediately relevant are Nagarjuna's Fundamental Wisdom of the Middle Way., Bradley's Appearance and Reality and George Spencer Brown's Laws of Form...

These authors dispose of all theories except one. Then it's just a question of researching the one that remains. Regrettably I know of no book that does this in a simple and concise way. I'm trying to finish one, but meanwhile...

...You might like to read a couple of essays I have on Bernardo';s blog. Both are on the same page. One is about the marketing of philosophy, the other about Nagarjuna and his solution for metaphysics. Both are on the same page here https://www.bernardokastrup.com/search?updated-max=2018-03-03T18:46:00%2B01:00&max-results=7&start=55&by-date=false

They are not comprehensive but they explain my comments above. Good luck. The area between mysticism and metaphysics is not well explored in the literature of either, so it's every man/women for him/herself. . . .




. '

, ,

I think that Bob Dylan is a wonderful artist. He is perhaps a better writer than a singer. My own funny experience was liking him while I was at school and hardly anyone knowing who he was because he was from an earlier era. I had his name scrawled across my school bag and someone in a different year group thought that was my name. But, I would say that albums like 'Blood on the Tracks', some of the earlier ones, as well as, 'Shot of Love, and, 'Oh Mercy, I see as outstanding, and they are like worldviews in their own right.

Thanks I will read your blogposts :up:

Hi Jack

What you say makes sense but it explains what I meant about scholasticism. You say that you're not sure there is such a thing as a neutral theory, yet this is the formal foundation of the Perennial philosophy. This is the insanity of our education system. The only metaphysical theory that works is not taught in out universities or even understood. This leads the rest of us to assume metaophysics is impossible. In fact a solution is right under our noses. .

Here is a brief outline.

A theory that awards reality positive properties such that is is this as opposed to that is positive or extreme. All positive or extreme metaphysical theories fail in logic. This result is demonstrable and well-established and it is why scholastic philosophers cannot make sense of metaphysics. They reject a neutral theory because it is mysticism. This is what I meant by 'stuck in scholasticism'. .

If we do not reject mysticism but study the whole of philosophy then we have a theory that works and an answer for all metaphysical questions. These answers are irrefutable.

There is a complete agreement between metaphysicians as to the logical indefensibility of positive theories, and as there is only one alternative it is quite easy to prove that this is the only theory worth studying. Yet for the scholastics it is the only one they refuse to study. This leads to the daft idea that metaphysics is incomprehensible and Kant is the best we will ever do. In fact it's just a failure of scholarship.

For the mystical metaphysician Kant is a beginner. In academia he is a rare genius. It's a funny old world. A neutral theory underlies Bernardo;s non-dual Idealism and gives it a philosophical justification.

From your comments here I'd predict you're easily able to exceed the understanding of Kant. He identified the problem but we have to go elsewhere for a solution. If he had had the internet I'll bet he would have had no trouble finding it. .

I'm happy to say more but will wait for any questions.
. .
PS. I just noticed you're a fan of Huxley's Perennial Philosophy. In metaphysics this philosophy depends on a neutral metaphysical theory for which Reality is a Unity and Consciousness and Reality are the same phenomenon. This states that all positive fundamental theories are absurd because they are false. Nobody has ever presented a better explanation or even one that works. .


. . .

I am just popping out now, but will read what you have written later, and look at your blogs and write a response to you later.

The reason it is not taught is that it is mysticism. Here there are no 'problems of philosophy'.

If the professors studied and taught the whole of philosophy then we would not be speaking of unsolvable problems. — FrancisRay


I stared a thread on this issue. IMO, we have the different (fuzzy) categories for a reason. It's not just mysticism that solves the problems of philosophy. Pain pills work too. So does a religious creed. But to be a philosopher is roughly to approach things 'rationally,' which is to take a certain ideal for granted. — j0e

Hi Joe

I am not a fan of fuzzy categories. I feel you are not giving mysticism its due since pain pills and religious beliefs are obviously not a solution for anything. When I say 'solution' I mean a rational and reasonable solution that can be explained to others and that does, in fact, solve the problems. I would certainly agree that we should approach things rationally, and it is my complaint against academics that they rarely do this. Rather, on ideological grounds they choose not to study the only fundamental theory that works, or, at least, the only one they cannot prove does not work. .This is not rational behaviour but plain stupidity. . .

The 'totality' seems to be beyond explanation, since explanation links this to that. But there's nothing outside the Everything that we can link it to. The 'system' hovers over an abyss. — j0e

That could be the case. Or it could be that we simply don't have the capacity to peer into nature any further. Explanations only go so far before we are forced to conclude that "that's just the way things are". But why are they this way? Who knows?

:)

I am not a fan of fuzzy categories — FrancisRay

Well I think it disappoints just about any philosopher to discover/decide that language isn't what they thought it was, that it doesn't play as nice as they hoped it would.

When I say 'solution' I mean a rational and reasonable solution that can be explained to others and that does, in fact, solve the problems. — FrancisRay

But to me that sounds like old-fashioned philosophy. I encourage you to share your solutions.

Rather, on ideological grounds they choose not to study the only fundamental theory that works, or, at least, the only one they cannot prove does not work. .This is not rational behaviour but plain stupidity. . . — FrancisRay

That's a bold statement. But make your case, please.

That could be the case. Or it could be that we simply don't have the capacity to peer into nature any further. Explanations only go so far before we are forced to conclude that "that's just the way things are". But why are they this way? Who knows? — Manuel

I guess my argument was from the 'grammar' of the word explanation. If 'explanation' is understood to mean linking one thing to another, different thing that explains it, the reality-as-a-hole has no thing that can serve this purpose. We can speculate that reality-as-a-whole is a failed concept, like the set of all sets.

Or, as you say, we can think of our presumed cognitive limits, given our finite brains and the finite time we've had to think as a species.

When I say 'solution' I mean a rational and reasonable solution that can be explained to others and that does, in fact, solve the problems. I would certainly agree that we should approach things rationally, and it is my complaint against academics that they rarely do this. Rather, on ideological grounds they choose not to study the only fundamental theory that works, or, at least, the only one they cannot prove does not work. .This is not rational behaviour but plain stupidity. . . — FrancisRay

Elsewhere you have hinted that insights about reality come from the nondualist philosophies. It is my understanding that the nondualist paths, in general, emphasize that reason (logos) is misleading and that true insights about reality are gleaned only through meditation (direct experience with 'Truth', as opposed to experience mediated through logos). Do you suppose that the enlightenment of the West (grounded in reason) is compatible with the enlightenment of the East (grounded in experience of pure awareness - or at least non-rational enquiry) are reconcilable? Is that the aim of perrenial philosophy? Edit: I suppose not, considering that perennial philosophy is a comparative study of mysticism and usually doesn't take western philosophical perspectives into account.

:fire:

I've actually come to love his strange voice. Very cool that you were rocking his name on your bag! He was already a classic when I was young. When I was in 7th grade it was Guns & Roses and Metallica on kids' shirts. I love Blood but also Desire and then the early albums right after he went electric.

:up:

Yes, that sounds about right."Reality as a whole" in not a coherent concept in that, it's not clear what aspects should be denied the status of "reality" or what such an account would amount too, there's way too many things to consider.

I'd love to talk about U2. Growing up my parents told me: "we don't listen to such music." But then 'All that you can't leave behind' came out with Beautiful Day as its single and as a teenager you just had to buy the CD. God, those days. Bono doesn't sing, he howls to the moon and the pack gathers! I think 'Bad' is currently my favorite song. Could change any moment though. :)

Sorry to hear that your parents hated such music as U2. My mother regards, 'With or Without You' and, 'I Still Haven't Found What I am Looking For' as two of her favourite songs. I love most of U2's albums, possibly favouring the earlier ones, such as 'War' and 'The Unforgettable Fire'. Recently, I have started to really like, 'Pop'. But, one which I once played and found so essential during a time when I was feeling really depressed was 'Achtung Baby', especially the lyrics. But, I do think that Bono has such a wonderful voice.

I like so many bands,and I see the 'The Whole of the Moon', by the Waterboys as being an anthem for philosophical searching. I believe that it was really about Prince.

I still go to record shops like when I was a teenager, seeking new music. I am just sad that so many of the music shops have shut down because I used to spend so many time browsing on them and I think searching for music on the internet is just not the same at all.

I do agree that we only have the 'capacity to peer into nature' so far. But if we were able to understand it all it would be like having the mind of a god. I think that the reason why it is so hard to go so far is that so much of life is invisible. We understand certain laws and I do think that the reason so much is unknown is due to the invisible aspects of reality.

We understand certain laws and I do think that the reason so much is unknown is due to the invisible aspects of reality. — Jack Cummins

Sure, that's a problem too.

But like you implied, aiming at having something like "the mind of God" is extremely unlikely. I think we should be grateful we've discovered so much as it is. A "humble" species coming along and understanding a portion of the universe is a big deal.

We'll surely discover more, but our understanding of newer aspects of physics for example, might be quite straining. The physics we already have is difficult enough as is.

It's okay. We don't live in the same house anymore. It was different back then.

Same here, there's only one store left in the neighbouring town. They seem to have a 'Dale Carnegie' cause they are surviving covid really well. You can listen to new releases and they have some free posters.
I don't buy that much anymore but I keep whatever I have in the CD-tower in my bedroom. Sentiment, you know.

I actually only have two greatest hits compilations + aforementioned album. But I can imagine it getting you through depression. I've many good memories linked to their songs. Wonderful you and your mom can relate in such a way.

Whole of the Moon. I heard it for the first time in Australia. When I came back I immediately looked it up.
It used to make me so emotional. I guess I'm more okay with the content of the song now. I'm realizing the lyrics are worth investigating more though.

It's great talking about this.

I had a look at the blog you referred to and the arguments you suggested. I have to admit that I have only read Kant superficially. I have read some of Huxley's books, and have a copy of 'The Perennial Philosophy', but haven't read it. So, perhaps, I need to be more rather than less of a scholar. It is interesting that you seem to think that the perennial philosophy is the one which really works. If I may manage to read Huxley's book later this week, after I finish some of the other books which I am reading currently.

:up:
I agree that it mostly fails as a concept. That being the case, maybe a 'total' explanation also fails as a concept?

You say that 'reality' fails as a concept. I can see that it is abstract, but are you dismissing the the term at all. I can see that explanations for many aspects of it are complex. However, I do think that the idea of reality works to encompass our experience and basis of knowledge.

I think it fails as a concept too. I don't know what such a thing would even amount to in practice.

You say that 'reality' fails as a concept. I can see that it is abstract, but are you dismissing the the term at all. — Jack Cummins

I'm just suggesting that the concept of the 'totality' (all of the reality) is problematic. I'm not saying that we can't or shouldn't use it but that perhaps in a certain argument that its misleading.

In general I don't think words have much useful meaning independent of context. Metaphorically words are like the notes that only become music when strung together in a human situation.

However, I do think that the idea of reality works to encompass our experience and basis of knowledge. — Jack Cummins

:up:

I agree. We can use 'reality' is many useful and illuminating ways. Recall that the point was raised in a particular context, namely the limits of explanation. Does it make sense to explain everything? For instance, if we say that God created the world and therefore explains the world, then the world is not everything and does not include God. To explain everything is to explain God and world. In other words, why God? More can and has been said on this. What are explanations? What do we mean by why? What do we mean by everything?

I don't think you have to be a scholar, as long as one is a practitioner. But for a philosophical understanding of Huxley it would be vital to study non-dualism and a neutral metaphysical theory. Since Huxley was writing much has changed and these days one can find non-duality teachers all over youtube. It's a fascinating area of study, and the most important of all, so good luck.

"Elsewhere you have hinted that insights about reality come from the nondualist philosophies. It is my understanding that the nondualist paths, in general, emphasize that reason (logos) is misleading and that true insights about reality are gleaned only through meditation (direct experience with 'Truth', as opposed to experience mediated through logos)".

There are some subtle issues here. Reason is not misleading but, as you say, it cannot reveal truth. What is can do is reveal where truth may be found, and it reveals that it may be found in meditation and through the practices of Yoga. It is often thought that logic is misleading, but if you read the Buddhist sage Nagarjuna you'll see this is not the case. He uses it it to prove the Middle Way doctrine of the Buddha. It is just that logic has to be employed much more carefully than it usually is in Western philosophy.. . . . .

"Do you suppose that the enlightenment of the West (grounded in reason) is compatible with the enlightenment of the East (grounded in experience of pure awareness - or at least non-rational enquiry) are reconcilable?"

Absolutely. Their compatibility is demonstrable. But there's no such thing as 'enlightenment of the West' (or East). It's the same enlightenment in all possible universes. The discoveries of the mystics are in full agreement with reason and analysis. Their doctrine is the only one that works in logic. This is what Nagarjuna proves. It is actually fairly obvious, since academic thinkers are agreed that all the others don't work. It;s just that they don't usually study the one that does. . . . . .

"I suppose not, considering that perennial philosophy is a comparative study of mysticism and usually doesn't take western philosophical perspectives into account."

The perennial philosophy is a philosophy, not a comparative survey. It has no use for the persectives of other philosophies. The mystics rejects the western perspective on philosophy and this is why it is so much simpler and unproblematic. The (stereotypical) western perspective is dualism, and this is not defensible in logic. Metaphysics endorses only one theory.

If the universe is reasonable then it follows that logic and experience will lead us to the same truth, and mysticism discovers that both do in fact lead to the same truth, Thus the Buddha advises us, if we are doubtful, to give his teachings a lot of thought.

if you look around you;ll see that everybody who rejects the non-dual doctrine of the Perennial philosophy cannot understand metaphysics. This is because all other theories don't work. Either the Unity of All is a fact as the enlightened ones tell us, or metaphysics is incomprehensible. There is no third option and this is demonstrable in logic

Hence the low view of metaphysics in the West, where it remains incomprehensible. . . . .



.

. . . . .

I actually find it so much easier to read than watch discussions on television or on YouTube. The one thing which I would query is that you say things have changed so much since Huxley, and presumably you mean that it is our understanding of 'reality' which is changing. I do agree that dualism is being rejected gradually. However, there is so much of a tendency towards reductive materialism. One perspective which I find useful is the systems view of Fritjof Capra. Rather than seeing mind and body he sees them as interconnected , with mind being imminent in nature.

Good old youtube. For nonduality teachers on YT I'd recommend Mooji, Sadhguru, Rupert Spira and Osho, but there are many more.

I'm not sure the general understanding is improving, but since Huxley non-dualism has come out of the closet and mysticism is much better explained.these days.

As for mind and matter, Sadhguru's favourite advice for newbies is to spend time telling oneself 'I am not the body. I am not the mind'. What we are would be what connects and produces body and mind. . . .

When I say 'solution' I mean a rational and reasonable solution that can be explained to others and that does, in fact, solve the problems. — FrancisRay

But to me that sounds like old-fashioned philosophy. I encourage you to share your solutions. — j0e

The solution is to endorse a neutral metaphysical position, which is the formal philosophcial justification for the Perennial philosophy and non-dualism. if you intend to look into this I'll suggest some book titles. .

Rather, on ideological grounds they choose not to study the only fundamental theory that works, or, at least, the only one they cannot prove does not work. .This is not rational behaviour but plain stupidity. . . — FrancisRay

That's a bold statement. But make your case, please.

I hardly need to do much to justify the proposal that philosophers should study the whole of philosophy, and not just the bit they prefer. If they could falsify or refute the view |I;m expressing then fair enough, but they cannot and don't even bother to try. I have no respect for philosophers who live in an internet age but cannot even be bothered to acquaint themselves with the philosophy of the mystics, at least well enough to explain what's wrong with it. I see it as an academic scandal and a betrayal of the public's trust. I don't even think that to call this stupidity is a bold statement.

But I would concede it may cause trouble on internet forums.:)n
. . .

. . . .

I definitely agree in embracing the reflection of not being mind or body, entirely. I have read some writing of Osho. I am in agreement about studying the whole of philosophy, rather just exploring aspects which we prefer. With regard to your comment that many people do not bother with the ideas they the mystics in this age, what I think is happening is that people are starting to look at ideas on a more superficial level.

However, as you say, certain truths, which you describe as being mystic, if discussed fully on a forum may cause a scandal because they are dismissed so often. I really prefer the idea of esoteric to mystic, and there is a thread on the esoteric. However, that is mainly aimed at the idea of there being an inner circle ,rather than a discussion about the truth of ideas as such, which are the mysteries. It may be that discussion, of esoteric knowledge is too complex for forum discussion, because it lacks intimate connections between individuals.