Yet, you haven't suggested any kind of incentive structure to create the demand for higher quality posts. — Wallows

I'm not going in to detail on 20 years of thinking on such subjects (I'm a retired forum software developer) because I've been given no incentive to do so. I'm ok with that. But should anyone want details, the price tag is to get off one's ass and start trying to solve the problem, if you perceive this to be a problem. Sorry dudes, I'm not going to play the game where I sit here posting constructive suggestions one after another while the rest of you sit back and do nothing but nitpick.

I'm ok with the nitpicking, but this is all you'll get in return.

That didn't happen at the old PF and it doesn't happen here. We've always had plenty of knowledgeable posters. That's almost twenty years of philosophy forums where your prediction has failed to materialize. — Baden

Start a thread on any subject, and watch it immediately begin to fill with twaddle.

Again, this forum is pretty good compared to many other forums. I totally agree with that. It's just no where near as good as it could be. If you don't care about that, if it doesn't interest you, ok, again for the 9th time just lock this thread and we're done. I have no problem with that at all.

Even with the resources, it would still a bad idea in my view. It would hurt the community nature of the place, which is based on character, variety, and a certain egalitarianism and tolerance (I hope) rather than just philosophical knowledge. Imagine you're running a bar that's been very successful at attracting a reasonably intelligent clientele who are on the whole happy with the place. Would it improve things to tell half of them that there's a new room just been set up for the favoured ones that they're not allowed entry to because they're just not good enough? Or would that just fuck things up? I say the latter. — Baden

It would only fuck things up with those of us who can't stand the thought that somebody might know something that we don't and that they are being appreciated and recognized for that accomplishment.

Yes, a number of current members would whine like little babies. I don't object. Let them do so. In the lower sections of the forum dedicated to such things.

It's just too much work Jake. TPF is a charity, not a business, and what you ask for requires time and money to achieve. — VagabondSpectre

This is a common complaint (I've had this very discussion approximately 3,000 times :smile: ) which is easily solved. That is, easily solved, if we want it solved. If we don't want it solved, it's impossible.

If you should actually wish that such a problem could be solved, start trying to solve it. If I see you doing that I'll participate.

Thanks for a very thoughtful reply. I will offer some debate, just in the hopes of keeping an interesting exchange going. I don't care if I "win" because I already know I'm not going to, and am ok with that.

In creating a split, we codified a hierarchical difference between those who have been granted access or not. — TheWillowOfDarkness

If every knowledge posters is off talking with other well read posters in their culbhouse, they won't be around to help newcomer's as much. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Ok, but there is a hierarchical difference. I'm just trying to recognize that. Some people have PhDs in these subjects, and some do not. Some people are articulate in their comments, while others are less so. Some people have been thinking about these subjects for 50 years, while others are encountering them for the first time. All posters are not created equal.

So the question I'm posing is, does the forum wish to make an effort to serve the needs of those who are most qualified to speak to these subjects?

If there is such a desire, where there is a will there is a way. If there is no such desire, then ok, no problem, let's just say that, close the thread and return to the regularly scheduled programming.

The major advantage of giving knowledge posters a clubhouse isn't here. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Without such a clubhouse we can kiss the knowledge posters goodbye. Thus we don't get to read them, at least not here. Without such a clubhouse there is no mechanism for encouraging knowledge posters to give the forum a try. Those with the most interesting thoughts on these subjects simply aren't going to invest their time in to scrolling through page after page of twaddle just to find the few posts that are indeed interesting. So we either recognize that reality and deal with it, or we say goodbye to them.

If every knowledge posters is off talking with other well read posters in their culbhouse, they won't be around to help newcomer's as much. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Without such a clubhouse, they won't be here at all.

Lastly, at least from an academic philosophy perspective, this forum just doesn't really have the user base to support an expert section. — TheWillowOfDarkness

I agree, and am just suggesting it might be an interesting challenge to try to expand the user base in this direction.

There are lots of ways such an attempt might be made, but we're never going to make much progress on that so long as our focus is exclusively on why this can never work.

Steve Jobs is a role model of sorts. The key to his success at making Apple the richest company in the world was that he was never happy with anything for long. He embraced a permanent state of chronic dissatisfaction.

This isn't a rule everyone has to follow, it's just an option that can be interesting to consider. Or not.

I'm not mad at anybody Wallows. And I've already said a number of times that I'm agreeable that the subject should be dropped and we return to the sleepy mediocrity of the status quo.

I'm attempting to raise the vision of what the forum might be. You know, perhaps it might someday be a place where professional philosophers participate. This forum could be unique, and not just yet another version of what already exists elsewhere. What I'm attempting to shine a light on are all the intelligent interesting people who might land here in a web search, open a thread full of twaddle, and say to themselves, "Oh, I see, just another forum" and then vanish without a trace.

There's nothing about forum software which prevents a forum from both serving those people, and a more general audience too. There just has to be a desire to serve both groups, to elevate a forum above the usual vision of what a forum can be, to not be another forum more or less just like all the others. Once such a desire exists, then a way will be found to serve that desire. Without such a desire, then the focus will be problems, problems, problems, problems, etc.

I am totally in favor of adding a hidden elite forum where only Jake can post, and henceforth restricting him to posting in that forum. — SophistiCat

Says the person who just yesterday offered us a way to do one version of what I'm describing, editing. It was a great contribution (thanks!), which I've already applauded a number of times. And now you're arguing against your own contribution.

No, it wasn't constructive criticism. It was an uncritically evaluated suggestion that was then critically evaluated and rebuked. Your response was not responsive to the criticism, but was just a general lament that no one wants to listen to your ideas. This thread is the precise sort that you're asking be relegated to the lower tier of this board. — Hanover

I'm wrong, I'm wrong, I'm wrong, I'm wrong, I'm wrong, I'm wrong, I'm wrong, I'm wrong, I'm wrong, I'm wrong, I'm wrong, I'm wrong, I'm wrong, I'm wrong, I'm wrong, I'm wrong, I'm wrong, I'm wrong, WRONG!

What you suggested was a hierarchy of posts as determined by the moderators. — Hanover

What I'm suggesting are conversations which might consider a variety of such options. Or not. Again, if mods aren't interested in any of this, ok, no problem, so delete the thread and we can all just forget it. I'm agreeable if that's the case.

I pointed out (1) the logistical impossibility of holding moderator sessions where we vote on the hundreds of new threads weekly — Hanover

Right, you focused on the wrong, wrong, wrong, impossible, impossible, impossible, while making no attempt to edit the idea to better suit your taste, or replace it with a better idea.

(2) the subjectivity inherent in evaluating thread quality, — Hanover

Yes, that's what editing is, subjective judgment. There is no scientifically approved math equation which can settle the question. Pick up any newspaper, any magazine. Somebody has decided what should appear there. If you generally like their decisions, you subscribe. If you generally don't like their decisions, you put it down and walk away. This has been going on for hundreds of years, it's not some crazy new concept.

(3) and the ideological biases of the moderators that could lead to claims of post suppression. — Hanover

Let the competing claimants claim away, while you build a higher quality section where the writers address more interesting subjects.

The disease of low quality posts that you believe invades this board is preferable to the cure your prescribe. That I've disagreed with you doesn't mean that I've stubbornly refused to listen. It means I really believe you've arrived at a particularly bad idea. — Hanover

Every single thing you've typed has focused on rejection, and you've offered no new ideas which might improve the forum. Again, this is not personal, every mod on every forum does essentially the same thing. Mods only like one kind of idea, THEIR idea. You're just the latest in 10,000 mods to express that mode of thinking.

Which is fine, totally ok. Again, if you're happy with what you've got, then there is no problem which requires a solution.

OMG, OMG, OMG, OMG!!!! Nuclear weapons are really bad!!! Here, look, I'll prove it!



Really, really, really bad!!

But, wait, somehow strangely beautiful....

Ok, so just as an example, threads in an edited section might not dissolve in to random cleverness Facebook style quips. Some people might prefer the de-quiped service to the one currently being offered. Some of those people might be inspired to share interesting content as a result. And those who preferred to quip etc could still do so in the now somewhat demoted sections of the forum.

Or, as yet another option, we could convert this thread in to an endless series of hysterical anti-nuclear rants, with insanely clever quips included at no extra charge!!!

Personally though, I would rather discuss Mickey Mouse.

Well, I suppose this complaint is at least an improvement on telling us the only topic worth talking about is nuclear war. — Baden

And now I will be the one doing the rejection. :smile:

Anyway, moving along...

I know some of the highly inexpert word choices I make can make this feel like a complaint. I plead guilty to often falling short of my own "elite" content goals, and often deserve the attitude I receive as a reply to the attitude I give.

But this is not really a complaint. If you're happy with the forum as it is, ok, we're done.

But if you're not happy, if you're getting bored with being a janitor, there are things that can be done about that.

Long world peace is only possible when there is one race, one culture and one country in the world. — Geo

And should such a situation be created (most likely by force) it would immediately begin to sub-divide in to competing factions, because...

1) we are all made of thought, and..

2) thought operates by a process of division.

So long as that is true, no method of external organization will lead to true peace.

Maybe if progress stall its not bad. Progress gives more and more opportunities for humanity to destroy this world — Geo

Bingo, we have a winner!

Viewed under these terms is human conflict inevitable? — Jonmel

In my endlessly repeated opinion, human conflict is inevitable because it's source is that which we're all made of, thought.

I just, well, um, duh, discovered the follow feature. Useful! I felt an obligation to say so, so I did.

A certain kind of suffering - actually, very many kinds - can be managed through medicine - — Wayfarer

Yes, and that's an important useful insight. What I mean is that suffering is to a significant degree a mechanical issue which when true makes the subject far simpler than complex psychological and philosophical theories etc.

1) Suffering is made of thought.

2) Control the volume of thought and we control the volume of suffering too.

3) The volume of thought can be managed through simple exercises patiently applied.

No, this is not a magical cure all for all problems, nor a permanent solution. But if we aren't serious enough to do the simple stuff, there's really not much point (other than casual entertainment) in discussing all the fancy stuff.

What we "look at and listen to" MAY be the real world. — Frank Apisa

What we listen to is typically the noise going round and round in our brains. That is, the symbolic world. And that's where the God debate is looking for God, in the symbolic world. We already know that the idea of God exists, so why are we still looking in the symbolic realm?

More of the same old tough mod guy automated rejection.

If I'm going to make my own "elite" content I don't need this site, I can do that on a blog. I'm on a forum because I'm hoping to find conversation with those capable of producing elite content. There's some here already. More would be better.

The current publishing model used by almost all forums is a serious obstacle to that. I'm just pointing out that there is nothing about forum software which requires the exclusive use of the "anybody can say anything" model. Philosophy forums could be something more interesting than a slightly improved version of Facebook.

Or not. I'm just trying to expand your vision in a useful direction. If you don't wish to have your vision expanded just erase the thread and we're done. I'm ok with that, no problem.

The “god question” is a funny one. On one hand, it might be THE QUESTION. On the other, it can easily produce so many more words, theories, polemics, factions. — 0 thru 9

Yes, agree with both points. Let's examine the logic of this process.

First, what's really being asked is not whether the idea of god exists, for it obviously does. To be more precise, the question is "does a god exist in the real world?"

This seems obvious too, until we realize that we aren't actually looking in the real world, but in the symbolic world ( words, theories, polemics, factions etc).

It's as if you asked if your shoes are in the bedroom and I replied, "I don't know, I'll go look in the garage." Nonsensical.

If we can set aside the God debate (words, theories, polemics, factions etc) then all that's left is looking in the real world.

The atheists suggest observation of reality as the appropriate method, and I agree. But not observation as a means to the end of theories and conclusions, but rather observation pursued for it's own value. Theories and conclusions just take us back in to the same old failed game.

We are rarely really looking or listening to the real world. Instead we are typically so very busy thinking and talking about the real world, something else entirely.

If our approach is to be reality based we might remember the the overwhelming vast majority of reality is.... nothing.

As I said, we're all open to feedback — Hanover

He said, while immediately discarding the latest constructive suggestion to enhance the quality of the forum, and making no effort to improve it in to something that he could accept.

See? The entire focus of your response to the suggestion has very predictably been reject, reject, reject, nothing but rejection, just like I said it would be.

No worries Hanover. It's like this on every forum on the net. All input is wrong, unless it was the mod's idea. I'm ok with that.

I just thought you good fellows might be getting bored with being janitors. If not, then ok, case closed.

I don't know- someone praying, meditating, or doing some act/deed that is deemed holy, seem pretty accessible. — schopenhauer1

They may seem holy to themselves, which doesn't automatically being holy.

Even the "minutia" of religious laws and dogmas, are not that complex compared with STEM and the enormous amount of information needed to keep the modern economy running. — schopenhauer1

Well, it's true that a great many people would be able to memorize religious laws and dogmas, but that does not automatically equal them being able to understand or live by those teachings.

Again, mysticism may be "inexhaustible" in its veiled mystery, but it is also something people can pick up and do. — schopenhauer1

Ok, so go try and do it then and report back what you accomplish. If anybody can do it, that would seem to include you as well, right? That said, I would agree that anybody can claim to be doing mysticism, except of course for all those billions of people who don't really have any idea what that word refers to. :smile:

Not meaning to be overly argumentative, but I think you may be exploring an apples to oranges comparison.

Sadly, life can be very unfair.

As you've seen, I'm a pretty self centered honking blowhard prone to pointless conflict, and concerned primarily with my own projects. Although I'm wise enough to treat my wife as the queen that she it, as for the rest of you, well, who cares really.

On the other hand, my wife is a saint. No shit, a saint. And what's interesting about it is that her sainthood is thoroughly non-ideological.

She's currently working (for free) as power of attorney for TWO old and sick people, which requires a seemingly endless list of very boring and annoying jobs, while at the same time rehabbing every other orphaned creature on Earth, and attending very patiently to the personal needs of her massage client ladies. A saint. But I jokingly call her a "karma hog" when discussing her activities with her. :smile:

Anyway, the point here is..

I have faith.

And my wife does not.

I can only talk the talk, while my wife can walk the walk. And I get faith and she doesn't. Makes no fucking sense....

But accessing this mystery of the religious (or perhaps just its dogmas) are open to all.. and give all a sense of autonomy over ones abilities. — schopenhauer1

I hear your argument, but would counter argue that mysticism and even dogma based religion is not open to all. Just as with STEM some folks are born with a knack for it and some are not. This can edited to some degree with effort, but only to some degree.

As one example, the disciplined methodology of science has proven itself utterly incapable of providing an alternative to religion which can compete successfully in the religious marketplace. This is obviously not because scientists are stupid, but only that they are smart at other things.

And what got lost in all of this, is the necessity of inner change... — Wayfarer

If I'm going to live a very short time, as we all are, and then I'm inevitably without question going to melt back in to unity with [god/nature/reality/whatever] how much of a necessity is inner change?

I'm driving cross country from Florida to California. My car is belching smoke, the air conditioner is broken, the radio doesn't work, and the seats are uncomfortable. But I'm going to make it to California, absolutely for sure 100% guaranteed with no chance at all of failure.

Yes, the trip across country can be bumpy. But the trip is temporary, and I'm going to get where I'm going no matter what. How much should I worry about my lame car?

No sooner do I whine about the quality of religion threads than you guys create a great religion thread. I'm on to you now though, a bunch of tricksters, that's what you are! :smile:

To me, it (organized religion) is ridiculous and has no place in the twenty-first century, but what I have learned is that I wish I could blindly believe, it would have brought me great comfort and great peace...instead I have to struggle, quite often, in finding my own meaning to my life. — Grre

Many people feel this way. They seek the peace that religion promises, but find themselves allergic to organized religion, often for some quite good reasons.

While ideally we would remain open minded enough to be able to selectively draw insight from some aspects of religion while discarding the nonsense, this is not always possible. In those cases it seems wise to simply toss religion entirely out the window and then proceed towards the goal of peace by other means.

As I see it, religion is just a means to an end. If religious means work for someone, great. If religious means don't work for another person, ok, so let's find some other means. If I'm trying to repair my car and one wrench isn't working, I shouldn't waste time yelling at the wrench, but should put it down and pick up another one. Ok, but like what....?

How about philosophy? How about analyzing what is obstructing our peace, and then addressing that obstacle?

No, sorry, wait, going too fast, let's back up. How about analyzing whether we actually want peace, and how much we want it? What often happens is that we tell ourselves we want peace, but then can never accept any path towards peace, which suggests we may not actually want peace after all. You know, if I say I want a new guitar but never find one I'm willing to pay for, then I probably don't actually want a new guitar. It would be good to know that before I invest a lot of energy in looking for something I don't really want.

Imho, faith and reason can lead to the same place. The apparent huge difference between faith and reason arises when we travel only a little way down our chosen path, and then stop to build a fort.

Completely agree. The only observation I would make is that, left to their own devices, people won’t generally do this. It doesn’t come naturally. So while you might say that no belief is necessary - where do you find the rationale to motivate this attitude, if not in religion (or philosophy)? — Wayfarer

Excellent point, thank you. I do agree that religion has been a powerful platform for bringing such perspectives to many billions of people. My post didn't give that reality adequate weight, perhaps because I was assuming the audience here is primarily not religious.

Whether one is religious or not, the primary motivator for exploring suggestions such as "love thy neighbor as thyself" is pain.

To tack back towards the opening post....

However, God and the mystical world are accessible to everyone. — schopenhauer1

Regrettably, this appears not to be true. As example, on this forum simply mentioning the words "God" or "mystical" is often enough to trigger allergies in some members which prevent them from exploring such subjects in any depth, as all their energy goes in to resistance.

Part of what interests me as the greatest writer in my imagination :smile: is to try to translate such concepts out of religious language so that they might become more accessible to those with the religion allergy.

This is not some kind of sneaky evangelicalism, because I am perfectly happy that a person who is allergic to religion simply discard religion and proceed to address their fundamental human needs by other methods. If one must, discard religion, but get the discarding over with as quickly as possible and keep moving. Don't get stuck in the discarding.

Okay, so what refined debate about religion would you like to have? — schopenhauer1

The short answer is that religion is really more about emotion than analytic thought, thus if one wishes to explore religion in a meaningful way considerable focus on our emotional experience of life would seem to be required.

As just one example selected at random, why are we here on this forum spending considerable time yelling at anonymous strangers? Whatever the reason, it would seem to have a lot to do with emotion.

What amazes me more in religious debate, is not the lack of philosophical sophistication but the lack of the development of history. — schopenhauer1

History is one dimension that could be enhanced, agreed. Wayfarer seems to know a good deal about this, as do some other members, Bitter Crank comes to mind.

I'm not against history discussion, but would argue that this is history, not religion. Religion concerns itself with addressing the fundamental human condition.

As example (again, just using an example most members will be familiar with) when Jesus said (I am not a follower of Jesus) "Love thy neighbor as thyself" he was offering a way out of the tiny prison cell of "me" which all human beings find themselves in.

Although for Jesus this advice was indeed part of a larger claim about the nature of all reality, that claim is not a necessary part of the advice. Anybody, whatever their ideological beliefs, can experiment with "Love thy neighbor as thyself" in their own personal life and come to their own conclusions regarding it's effectiveness. No belief is necessary. No faith is necessary. No God is necessary. No church is necessary. No clergy are needed. Holy books not required.

Posters like Wayfarer would be able to expand such examples in to other religious traditions beyond Christianity. I'm referencing Christianity only because it's the religion most familiar to most of us.

Anyone can think they are a master of knowledge in the realm of mysticism. It provides a sort of mastery of our understanding and of our place in the universe, without doing the heavy lifting. — schopenhauer1

There are various understandings of mysticism of course.

As you are using the word here you seem to be assuming mysticism is another method of developing knowledge. I would agree that this is a not uncommon way of looking at it, and that many mystics offer many different explanations of reality.

Another way of looking at mysticism is as being the opposite of knowledge. That is, as experience of reality rather than explanations of reality. Put another way, a focus on the real instead of the symbolic. Or perhaps as "aphilosophy", that is, "not of philosophy", just as atheism is "not of theism".

From this perspective it is the experiences themselves which matter, not our explanations of them. As example, if you eat an apple you get the nutrition the apple contains, whether or not you know the name of this fruit, how it was grown, how it is digested, what vitamins it contains, what category of food the apple belongs to etc. The explanations may be interesting to some, but they contain no nutrition, for they are not real food but only a pile of symbols.

Bouncers are needed on every forum, and we can thank the mods for performing this essential function, for free. Sincerely, without this work the forum would quickly spiral downward, as has been witnessed on some other philosophy forums.

That said, it would be great if this process of cleaning up the bottom end of the scale might be complemented with additional efforts to further populate the top of the quality scale.

It would great if the forum could be organized not only by topic but also by content quality, which would of course be defined and determined by the mods.

Having made such suggestions on many forums for about 20 years I can confidently predict what will happen next.

Someone will shout "FREEDOM OF SPEECH!!", a totally irrelevant concept in this context, to be followed by a chorus of the Down With Elitism!! theme song.

Then Baden will inform me that I couldn't possibly teach him anything because he already knows everything. :smile:

Ok guys, go ahead, do your thing, let the highly predictable dance begin.

Good news, we have achieved discussion which is beyond the God debate! Success at last!!! :smile:

And this manner of discourse, in your estimation, constitutes philosophy? — EnPassant

Check out the new ignore feature which has been added to the forum. Very helpful in raising the signal to noise ratio.

Generally speaking, philosophy forums are rarely qualified to comment on religion, imho. As example, the overwhelming majority of religion threads typically address the God claims question, as if that was all that religion is.

To use the best known example in our Western culture, consider Christianity. Jesus said "love your neighbor as yourself". This is a radical suggestion, which is never discussed on philosophy forums. The whole topic of love, generally completely ignored. Jesus said, "Die to be reborn", no interest at all in what that might mean.

With a few notable exceptions, the commentary on religion on philosophy forums (not just this forum) is pseudo intellectually clever, and quite shallow.

As I see it, the primary problem is not any particular member, mod, or forum but the "almost anybody can say almost anything" publishing model which dominates all forms of social media. That's a fine model on Facebook, a platform which focuses on water cooler chit chat. And it's a model which is very democratic and inclusive, but democratic and inclusive is not really the path to quality content on any publication focused on thoughtful intellectual type topics.

But, I must admit this complaint is largely pointless for social media (including forums) is now so thoroughly dominated by people who don't understand any of the above that there's no hope of meaningful change really.

You know, Buddhism (and several other ancient Indian traditions like Jain) were actually called the ‘forest-dwelling schools — Wayfarer

Interesting!

I read Krishnamurti from about 1978-84, but I realised that 'reading Krishnamurti' (and even listening to his talks) would only get one so far. — Wayfarer

Agreed. But I think JK himself would have said the point was not to listen to him, but to conduct one's own investigation. The way I see it, he was just trying to talk folks in to doing that. The problem though of course is that often the speaker becomes an alternative to one's own investigation. Thus, the urgent need for fart jokes. :smile:

But I think teachings are very like the Buddhist Prajñāpāramitā teachings. (Actually the Dalai Lama said the same.) — Wayfarer

I know nothing about this, please feel free to educate us further. Also, have begun digging in to John Hick as you suggested.

But when he asks 'is it possible for the content of that consciousness to be dissolved?' the answer is: it's extremely difficult! — Wayfarer

Maybe. Certainly it's difficult if not impossible to establish that as a permanent condition. That's not even a healthy goal imho.

However, if one is reasonable and realistic, lowering the volume of thought is available through simple techniques. Techniques aren't even required necessarily. For me, it's just time in the woods. Ok, lots of time. But still it's the time that does the work really, more than me. If you show up, and hang around, and stick around, and don't be greedy and impatient, good things in the right direction can happen pretty much on their own.

(like what happened to Jill Bolte Taylor, the neuroscientist who had a massive stroke which also turned out to be a spiritual awakening.) — Wayfarer

I heard that story on NPR, fascinating! We should dig that story up and share it.

That said, Krishnamurti had a confident authoritative manner of speaking which did unintentionally suck some people in to authority worship. — Jake

There is a cure for this problem which I am pioneering. Regularly act like a junior high school jerk. I find I have a natural talent for this technique and am perfecting it to a high art form. It might have helped if Krishnamurti had added some fart jokes to his talks. :smile:

As I have mentioned previously, this theme is rather similar to the teaching of Krishnamurti. — Wayfarer

I was significantly influenced by Krishnamurti in my youth. I credit him with first introducing me to the insight that thought is inherently divisive (ie. operates by a process of division). At this point so many years later, I can no longer say where the boundary is between that influence and other influences, my own life experience etc. For the last 15 years or so my primary influence has been a state park up the road from here.

Very similar, right? — Wayfarer

JK would have likely referred to the God debate as a bunch of silly nonsense, or words to that effect. There is also the similarity that JK typically didn't just spell things out, but tried to create an atmosphere where the reader conducts their own investigation. I've been reluctant to spell many things out as well until readers have rid themselves of the God debate, which rarely happens, so I remain mum on some topics.

So is Krishnamurti 'an authority'? — Wayfarer

As I'm sure you know (but most others probably won't) JK was raised from a child to be the next big savior figure etc, a role which he rejected when he came of age. He called a big meeting of the religion being built around him and told everyone to go home, claiming that "truth is a pathless land".

That said, Krishnamurti had a confident authoritative manner of speaking which did unintentionally suck some people in to authority worship. I once had an online conversation with the lead teacher at the Krishnamurti school in Ojai California who told me Krishnamurti was the closest thing to a god we would see, which I read while banging my head against the monitor.

Another similarity between myself and JK is that I say way too much way too often. This can be useful to some (like myself when I was young) because the only way some folks will ever be able to enter this arena is through intensive nerd analysis. JK met over thinkers where they actually live, and that was helpful to me at the time.

All that said, there was another book which came out around the same time I met JK called "Be Here Now". I'm sure you know the book. I dismissed it as a college sophomore because the book Be Here Now was sort of a cartoon comic book, and I was an "intellectual!!" who wanted the "serious information!!". :smile:

With the passing of time I've come to see those three words Be Here Now are actually all any serious person really needs, and long honking bloward rants such as this are really just getting in the way, delaying the moment of decision.

But, I was born to blow hard, and nothing can be done about that apparently, and so I accept my embarrassing situation with a sense of humor as often as possible.

And, I spend the majority of my days in the woods from dawn to dusk. That too. Very important.

Thanks for your reply, and for starting this thread which hopefully (with all of our best efforts) will generate more light than heat. — 0 thru 9

Oh dear, too late for that, but anyway, life goes on.

In very general Buddhist terms, the ignorance you refer to might be more like an acceptance of sunyata, or emptiness. — 0 thru 9

Aha! I meet someone who understands what I am trying share, probably better than I do. :smile: If I had a brain I would be on a Buddhist forum, where I might actually learn something.

Yes, so long as one feels one has "The Answer", whether theist or atheist, there is really no need for an investigation, so the process degrades in to a competitive ideological shouting match.

I've been attempting, however ineptly, to pull the rug out from under the God debate so that the fantasy answer machine is destroyed. What makes this rather difficult is that many or most speaking to this subject are not actually interested in the God debate at all, but rather in the competitive shouting match experience which can be launched from it.

Anyway, should one succeed in liberating oneself from the God debate, if all the unproven and unprovable authorities are destroyed and discarded, one is left with nothing, no ground to stand on, no answer, or even any methodology which might promise an eventual answer.

At first, such an outcome may sound like a distressing, depressing failure. Isn't this opposite of what we were reaching for???

On the surface, yes, it is. But just underneath the surface the failure of the God debate is leading us towards the experience of unity that we most seek. That is, maybe the failure is not really a failure after all?

We feel isolated, separate, alone, fearful, and sometimes angry about this because we don't know how to escape. We try to think our way out of the trap, perhaps through religion, perhaps through reason, or something else, anything. And so we build a mountain of fantasy knowings and cling to it fiercely, protecting it from all enemies.

But what is hopefully eventually given to all who are patient and serious is the realization that it is thought itself which is generating this experience of isolation and separation, and the fear which springs from it. Once one has seen this it becomes obvious that no philosophy or ideology can cure the hunger we feel, because every one of them is made of thought.

But the emptiness can heal the wound. Not because it's some magic mystery medicine, but simply because it's not thought, it's not a conceptual machine which depends entirely on the processes of division. It's not that logical to assume one can reach the experience of unity via a device whose specific purpose is to divide reality in to conceptual parts.

I have little idea how this might relate to Buddhism, because as may have long been obvious, I'm not well read. Well, that is, I don't read many books.

Why settle for second hand information about the real world when the real world is all around us in every moment of our lives, entirely willing to be read directly? If Jesus knocked on our front door would we talk to him directly, or close the door and go read a book about Jesus instead? The answer is just common sense, right?

Regrettably, members are now reading what somebody says about the reality of the human condition, the very flawed methodology I just got done debunking. And I'm helping them do it. No wonder my application for guru status was denied!! :smile:

Blah, blah, blah to the power of ten. Oh well, the embarrassing irony is helping build my sense of humor. :smile:

I just think it's too funny that you think you can deduce my age from the fact that I simply do not agree with you. I mean, that's just the epitome of religious dogma right there. — NKBJ

If you're not a twenty something, that's even sadder. See? My impatience wearing thin. Food fight coming. Is that what you seek? How about this, I would be willing to add you to my ignore list if that will help liberate you from my nonsense. You could add me to yours as well if you wish. Problem solved. An option to consider...

Additionally, age is immaterial, because either an argument is good or bad in and of itself. — NKBJ

But the ability to understand an argument is not a universally shared condition.

You don't even know what my argument might be. You haven't the slightest idea. You're just making up stuff to yell about, rejecting for the experience of rejection, a process which you call "logic".

Ok, no more food fight. You win ok. If you keep coming at me I'll solve that with the new ignore feature. Your call.