Thank you, glad to be here :)

okay thanks for this. Gives me something further to look into

Are you talking about practice in the sense of a repeated excercise in order to maintain or improve a skill?

I don’t mean practice in this sense.. I meant in terms of professional practice e.g Doctor

What do you mean by “developing the concept”?

From which perspective can they be interpreted as "other" dimensions? — armonie

Yes this is what I’m asking.

It seems that before the propsed conclusions within the OP can be further explored, we would require some elaboration on his concept of dimensionality, spirituality and also their relationship to one another.

I guess what I was getting at is, is it reasonable to define these “schemes” as other dimensions?
And if so, does that necessarily mean they are “spiritual dimensions” as OP’d?

There is no baby to force a will prior to birth. Rather, forcing anything physically is an aggressive act, thus violating the principle of non-aggression. — schopenhauer1

Ok can you please clarify where exactly the force in this instance occurs? You will have to be more specific in defining 'forcing something physically' and where the limits around the concept of 'physical force' lie.

Otherwise any action we do could be defined as 'forcing physically'.
Painting a picture can be "forcing something physically" etc.

An intuitive definition of 'force' is to 'act against a will', in fact when you gave the examples of theft and extortion earlier in the thread, both examples implied this definition.

So, whose will do you act against when you have a baby?

Forming relationships is instinctive. At one stage it increased chances for physical survival. Same as having children (survival of species/tribe and even more simply survival of yourself when you got too old to hunt)

Now we have comparatively ‘mastered’ pure physical survival and use the same instincts to seek realisation/actualisation.

Forming relationships is more aimed at this now. We seek out people with similar world views and in forming a relationship we validate each others beleifs.

As for having children. I think it’s mostly residual basic instinct that is now pointed internally and that’s why we question it. “How does this fit in to our process of self actualising?”

Also when you say “forcing a baby against their will”
How do we know what constitutes a “will”? We are assuming that the unborn child had a “will” before being born and assuming their will was ‘not to be born’?
Are you not?

Being good doesn’t always mean being happy.
You can be a good citizen and not be happy. You can be a good worker and not be happy.
Being good isn’t feeling good.
Being good is associated with good behaviour more often than feeling I would’ve thought.

Never tried DMT but have read and also heard first hand recounts of the experience.
One characteristic of the experience that seems to be common is the sensation/hallucination of what they retrospectively refer to as their 'ego' breaking apart or something similar.

To me i've always thought that the experience may not be one of another dimension but could be simply perceiving more (or less) of this dimension. Perhaps DMT affects the way the brain interprets sensory data and therefore augments our perception.
I've also heard people say that their perception of time is impacted.

The 'ego breaking down' and the fact their perception of time is affected sounds like the limitations on our sensory intake are being effected.

Our 'perceived reality' is greatly determined by the limitations of our senses. Perhaps when these senses are affected by DMT for example, we are able to perceive the same reality but with a different lens/filter. Not sure if we are seeing more or less or just simply a different perspective.

hmm but I would have thought that the 'non-monetary' benefits wouldn't qualify as benefits at all for Thrasymachus in that the only benefit that would contribute to the attainability of a socially advantageous position would be money.

What if we employ different philosophical attitudes/approaches as different devices for exploring different ideas.
One approach may be more appropriate for one idea in particular and so on.

If we reduce the idea of different philosophical views to the notion that they collectively attempt to represent meaning this would allow us to see how "opposing" philosophical attitudes may just be two sides of a multi-sided coin.

Philosophical attitudes are generally corollary to another and can't exist independently out of nothing.
(post structural view of literary work being one facet of a complex organism of culture, conditioning, genre, etc.)

If we see it this way could we get more use out of it?

I'll try and allegorize this with the development of language.

Language evolved in tandem with us. We went from purely surviving, to surviving efficiently and eventually to having (for the most part, at least in the first-world western societies) some sort of containment/mastery on basic physical survival e.g. food is practically almost always accessible, life expectancy growing etc.

As a result of this evolution out from basic physical survival, we had the time/energy and even the larger brains we grew to express more complex ideas/sentiments.
We needed/developed a language that expressed more complex ideas then "Warning" "food""safe" etc.
New words were formed either by combining words or creating new ones with the sounds we were able to put together to express these relatively more complex ideas.

To liken philosophy to this notion, different philosophical attitudes are like different words that we develop.
We put theses words together, categorize them phonetically, conceptually syllabically etc. (conscious of this purpose or not)
e.g. a lot of basic, common objects are given simple names; (chair, pen, house, etc.) while a lot complex notions are given longer names (usually greek)etc.

But all these words together no matter how simple or complex are all dependent upon each other to express/represent some meaning. They form the language that we employ and continually develop in order to best express meaning (whatever that is)


So I guess continental haha

every assumption defines a paradigm

Interesting, just seeking elaboration on this?
In what manner does the assumption define a paradigm?
Do you mean that the process of justifying an assumption in particular defines it as a paradigm?

So when i say 'perceived reality' i'm implying that there is a 'truer' reality that isn't available to us due to limitations on our sensory perceptions (e.g. partial perception of colour spectrum, partial perception of sound frequencies) as well as limitations on our ability to excogitate (developing heuristics which sometimes lead to error, cognitive biases etc.)
Similar idea as Plato's theory of Forms in the way that a (truer) reality exists independently of the reality we perceive.


As for 'external' - I mean this as external from the perspective of the 'truer' reality - outward from that 'truer' reality via 'it's' own internal excogitations'

As for the 'idea' and how its being processed - I mean to say that our individual experience in this 'lower and limited' reality is part of the processing of the idea (from the 'truer reality'). Again, as a projection or some sort of simulation.