Compartmentalized Philosophy problems with making assumptions

[itsjustaname]

I don't really care for the spiritual threads on this forum. My baloney detection kit goes wild at things at most of the topics like chakras and mediumship and things like this.

Skepticism (baloney detection) not to the point of solipsism, but to the point of doubting things on the fringes of mainstream science and engineering.

Philosophy like everything in academia has been compartmentalized for the worse. But as this is the case, I think philosophy is all about argumentation. And to the extent that is true, it has little to do with spiritual experiences.

It is interesting though, because philosophers always try to assume the least, because assumptions form the bedrock of your arguments, and if they are shown to be poorly chosen, then your whole school of thought is overturned and rendered fallacious.

Over the years I've tried on for size many philosophies of living, arguments for socializing and interacting with the material (included is social) world. Included are Buddhist philosophy, Taoist philosophy, various self help literature like Albert Ellis - a Guide to Rational Living and 7 habits for effective people, etc. I don't like to think of myself as a member of any 1 school of thought, ecclecticism makes sense, because I don't want to be rigid in my rules governing behavior.

I think philosophy as it has been compartmentalized is about assumptions at the groundwork and obviously the development of larger arguments. Carol Dweck talked about a Growth mindset, I think this is a perfect example of the limitations of any philosophical school of thought. They are about belief and not knowing. They are about buying into the assumptions, which are rarely if ever 100% reliable. It is a mindset, "The power of believing you can improve your intellect", rather than the power of KNOWING you can improve your intellect. All mindsets fit this quagmire.

Perhaps this is what drives the emphasis on skepticism/solipsism and logic in philosophical research.

[sunsoul]

I do recommend J. Krishnamurti.... The end of thought opens up the beginning of true awareness and some fundamental certainty.

[Lucid68]

When you first start nurse training you are taught to "assume nothing" cos it makes an "***" out of "you" and an "***" out of "me", regards . . .

[itsjustaname]

Originally Posted by sunsoul

I do recommend J. Krishnamurti.... The end of thought opens up the beginning of true awareness and some fundamental certainty.

He said essentially we have to leave our comfortable nest eggs and start a revolution in spiritual community, like ashrams or utopias or kibbutzes. He said it would be impossible to live pure fundamentally sound spiritual life with no hypocrisy, unless we leave current society and go out in to the wild world.

I think he is right, but I am a coward to do that sort of thing. Hopefully I won't suffer (eternal) damnation for being meek and weak, spriitually.

He is a relative modern spiritual guide, so he has many videos on youtube, I should heed your advice and watch some of them. I stink at reading, sadly.

[sunsoul]

I don't think he said that we have to live in an ashram to live a spiritual life.. The revolution begins with the self!

[FallingLeaves]

Originally Posted by itsjustaname

He said essentially we have to leave our comfortable nest eggs and start a revolution in spiritual community, like ashrams or utopias or kibbutzes. He said it would be impossible to live pure fundamentally sound spiritual life with no hypocrisy, unless we leave current society and go out in to the wild world.

I think he is right, but I am a coward to do that sort of thing. Hopefully I won't suffer (eternal) damnation for being meek and weak, spriitually.

He is a relative modern spiritual guide, so he has many videos on youtube, I should heed your advice and watch some of them. I stink at reading, sadly.

I used to be a big fan of 'pure' life, but one day it crossed my mind that I wasn't doing much living while i was being busy trying to attain the pure life so that I could live.

[Gem]

Originally Posted by itsjustaname

I don't really care for the spiritual threads on this forum. My baloney detection kit goes wild at things at most of the topics like chakras and mediumship and things like this.

Skepticism (baloney detection) not to the point of solipsism, but to the point of doubting things on the fringes of mainstream science and engineering.

Philosophy like everything in academia has been compartmentalized for the worse. But as this is the case, I think philosophy is all about argumentation. And to the extent that is true, it has little to do with spiritual experiences

The categorisation of things is the basis for the 'expert', so the expert is created discursively via a process of categorisation. This is why you'll notice that experts are continually qualifying things and compartmentalising things into stages in their attempt for self preservation. As a result, this requires endless production repetition and perpetuation of discourses.

It is interesting though, because philosophers always try to assume the least, because assumptions form the bedrock of your arguments, and if they are shown to be poorly chosen, then your whole school of thought is overturned and rendered fallacious.

The field of academia is set up so that you present your argument and make it open to criticism, so arguments require a very sound basis in logic and a sturdy construction upon that foundation.

Over the years I've tried on for size many philosophies of living, arguments for socializing and interacting with the material (included is social) world. Included are Buddhist philosophy, Taoist philosophy, various self help literature like Albert Ellis - a Guide to Rational Living and 7 habits for effective people, etc. I don't like to think of myself as a member of any 1 school of thought, ecclecticism makes sense, because I don't want to be rigid in my rules governing behavior.

This is the irony where so many approaches across philosophy, spirituality and science never produce a comprehensive answer, and this is due the inability to articulate real things, as we can only articulate symbolic references.

I think philosophy as it has been compartmentalized is about assumptions at the groundwork and obviously the development of larger arguments. Carol Dweck talked about a Growth mindset, I think this is a perfect example of the limitations of any philosophical school of thought. They are about belief and not knowing. They are about buying into the assumptions, which are rarely if ever 100% reliable. It is a mindset, "The power of believing you can improve your intellect", rather than the power of KNOWING you can improve your intellect. All mindsets fit this quagmire.

Perhaps this is what drives the emphasis on skepticism/solipsism and logic in philosophical research.

The philosopher never knows anything per se, but can say what they think. As Bohr said, we aren't interested in saying how things are; we are only concerned with what we can say about things.

[r6r6]

Dictionary is a catgorization of words, that, humans have some form of common agreement upon.

Many words share meanings with other words-- synonyms ---.

To communicate, we have to have a common set of agreed upon concepts, expressed in a word(s) or some combination thereof.

Spirit-1 = metaphysical/intellect as spirit-of-intent

Spirit-2 = physical/energy ergo fermions, bosons and any aggregate combination/collection thereof as occupied space.

Soul = biological, if not speciifically biologicals with a nervous system

Divine = 2 vines ex two woody vines--- poison ivy, virginia creeper/maypoe etc or as male{ Xy } and female{ Xx } intertwining as a common set, with each having access to mind/intellect ergo concepts of a cosmic finite whole ex Universe, and an infinite non-occupied space beyond the finite whole ergo God/"U"niverse.

Spirit-3 = the gravitational essence of Universe, as the ultra-micro membrane/fabric network of nodal-vertexial events that act as the buffer-zone between macro-infinite non-occupied space and as,

the integral force that binds/coheres as a finite whole that cannot disintegrated into a non-occupied space of true nothingness.

We--- fermions, bosons and gravity --- only inter-transform between states/phases/configurations of existence, eternally. imho.

Beginnings and endings are only local phenomena, albeith, the finite Universe may have times where it is all bosonic or only graviational, I dunno. It eternally occupies space is one of my many points.
r6

[FallingLeaves]

Originally Posted by r6r6r

To communicate, we have to have a common set of agreed upon concepts, expressed in a word(s) or some combination thereof.

which is exactly the problem... the definitions are like lines in the sand and it is very hard to redraw them when new information is discovered. The trick if you really want to get somewhere is to let the meanings morph into something new instead of relentlessly sticking to the same meaning for social reasons.

[r6r6]

http://www.pastemagazine.com/article...abble-dic.html

.."Rolling Stone reports that new words like “Selfie,” “Beatbox,” “Mixtape” and “Hashtag” are only a few terms added to the new dictionary, which is out today. "

Tweep, freegan, frack.

In 7th or 8th grade--- 60's ---our English teacher told story from her youth and how they did this really dumb s she stated, righfully so, "we pulled real boner"

The whole class broke out and laughter and the teacher is like 'what did I say?', and of course none of us were going to tell here what boner meant to us. :--)

Originally Posted by FallingLeaves

which is exactly the problem... the definitions are like lines in the sand and it is very hard to redraw them when new information is discovered. The trick if you really want to get somewhere is to let the meanings morph into something new instead of relentlessly sticking to the same meaning for social reasons.