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 <anartax...@yahoo.com> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, August 18, 2013 10:36 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra nothing without Maharishi --- 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.
