IS any of it a "discovery?" It seems more like its an acknowledgement of a situation: Oh, I'm like that, aren't I? Huh. Not as big a deal as I expected.
L --- In [email protected], doctordumbass@... <no_reply@...> wrote: > > "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 [email protected], 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: [email protected] > > Sent: Sunday, August 18, 2013 10:36 AM > > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra nothing without Maharishi > > > > > > > > Â > > --- In [email protected], "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. > > >
