"And there is enlightenment which is thought to be the ultimate in questions and answers?"
Enlightenment *is* a verb, mostly, one discovery after another. Though, on approach, like seeing Disneyland in the distance, it looks like a massive, solid, consumable, object. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long <sharelong60@...> wrote: > > Xeno wrote: There is philosophy which has been said to be questions without > anwsers. There is religion, which has been said to be answers that cannot be > questioned. And there is enlightenment. > > Share writes: And there is enlightenment which is thought to be the ultimate > in questions and answers? > > Plus, what about science? There is science which only loves operationally > defined questions and answers? > > > ________________________________ > From: Xenophaneros Anartaxius <anartaxius@...> > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Sunday, August 18, 2013 10:36 AM > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra nothing without Maharishi > > > > Â > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <authfriend@> wrote: > > > > You should probably read the essay: > > > > http://organizations.utep.edu/Portals/1475/nagel_bat.pdf > > > > Knowing what it is like to be your identical twin brother > > is no more possible than knowing what it is like to be a > > bat. You can imagine to a certain extent what it would be > > like for *you* to be a bat or to be your identical twin > > brother, but you cannot know what it is like for a *bat* > > to be a bat, nor what it is like for your identical twin > > brother to be your identical twin brother. > > > > As far as Batman is concerned, there is nothing that it > > is like for Batman to be Batman, since he doesn't exist. > > I did read Nagel's essay some years ago, but just taking what you have > written here, I have a few comments. > > There is something it is like to be Batman because this persona was created > in the human mind of Robert Kane. The human mind can envision things, > situations, people, which previously did not exist, and bring them to > fruition. I am thinking how realistically good actors portray characters that > in many cases are very unlike their own persona. People actually seem to come > to believe that the actors are the characters, and not as they really are, > people doing the job of pretending to be a person for the purpose of drama. > We create machines that never have before existed, say the iPod. Is there > something it is like to be an iPod? (Assumes that consciousness is not a > localised property). > > What is the certain extent that it is possible to imagine what it is to be > like someone? > > If it is true you cannot know what it is like to be even your twin, if you > had one, what does this say for your supposed ability to know what a person's > motives are, what they are experiencing when they make a post here on FFL? > According to the account above, it would seem likely that you are very much > overstepping what it is possible to actually know, and yet you present > other's motivations in such a way that makes it seem you are certain this or > that is what is happening internally with a person when that person posts. > This comment of course applies to anyone else who here posts also. I am not > questioning your motives here, but what evidence exists that supports your > view of their motives for posting? > > I have been gradually reading through Feser's blog posts on Nagel. Really > interesting. I would consider him a dualist of some kind. I am not a dualist > because I have a world view that does not include metaphysics. It certainly > includes mystery, as the details of existence are elusive. For me the mystery > of consciousness is largely solved, but there is nothing I can say about it, > but as it turns out I am actually in agreement with Maharishi on the majority > of essential points even though I find the Hindu-centric nature of the > movement's language less appealing than other ways of speaking about this. Of > course others may consider what I think of what Maharishi taught as a gross > distortion of what he actually meant. So the world turns. > > In general, any philosophy that separates characteristics of existence into > logically incompatible categories serves to provide endless argument. > Examples are physical and non-physical, matter and spirit, etc. Whenever this > is done, it seems impossible to create an interface between the two opposed > characteristics that would connect them. It is kind of like positive and > negative integers. Mathematically possible. But what is the appearance or > taste of one orange compared to a minus one orange? So there are three > choices (at least). There is philosophy which has been said to be questions > without anwsers. There is religion, which has been said to be answers that > cannot be questioned. And there is enlightenment. What is it like to be > enlightened? Is it possible for anyone to know what it is like to be > enlightened? > > If, for example, there are enlightened people posting on FFL, presumably they > would know what it is like. For the others, they would not know at all, > though they might believe they know what it would be like. And then there > might be some who think they are enlightened, but have made a mistake. And > then maybe this whole enlightement thing is just a ruse. >
