This is an interesting topic, Allan. I think there is humor as well as the serious in looking at one's interior conversations. The mind is a busy place for ideas and judgements. And what role does emotion play- or health- or dozens of other influences upon the state of one's thinking? An open mind could get drafty- a closed mind could be a prison. I suppose the mind is an endless debate of thoughts- I find this to be healthy and a form of freedom.
We could develop a pill...was reading an essay on developing a morality pill which the reader comments objected to (NYTimes)- so why not a thought pill to relieve our struggles? :-) On Jan 30, 8:16 am, Allan H <[email protected]> wrote: > hoi Rigsy > > On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 2:22 PM, rigsy03 <[email protected]> wrote: > > It's often easier to talk to oneself- either way thoughts go, you > > win! :-) > > That is really not true,, I find hearing what I have to say often > times clarifies what i want to say and at times find the idea or thought > full of shit.. but any discussion of philosophy is beneficial > > But there well what was it I was saying? > Allan > > > > > On Jan 29, 1:21 pm, Allan H <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Yeah it is kind of like an old dog sappen on his favorite bone. > > > > it is trying to understand others, and what I have experienced As I have > > > very few friends that like discussing God I talk to myself a lot..which > > is > > > no problem as I am never really alone,. > > > Allan > > > > On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 3:05 PM, Molly <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Not at all irrelevant. did you have more thoughts about this? > > > > > On Jan 28, 10:19 am, gabbydott <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Hi Mol&Rigs, listening to you two I've been asking myself why none of > > > > > you mentions Jung and his description of the collective unconscious. > > I > > > > > haven't read the Red Book yet, but maybe of of you has and could tell > > > > > me why this is irrelevant to what you are discussing. > > > > > > On Jan 27, 2:35 pm, Molly <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > The paramount paradox. > > > > > > > On Jan 27, 8:21 am, rigsy03 <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > Yes- I've read a lot of Campbell and admire his efforts. In > > fact, I > > > > > > > was going to put the Oriental Mythology of his Masks of God > > series > > > > > > > aside to reread- Indian, Chinese and Japanese chapters. I wish I > > > > could > > > > > > > keep certain studies on top of my thinking but maybe I have read > > so > > > > > > > much there is a chute to forgetfulness or a pit of scrambled > > > > > > > ideas! :-) Oh, dear! > > > > > > > > However, back to your comment about looking back/within. I > > consider > > > > > > > there is impossible split between the spiritual and material and > > yet > > > > > > > that is our struggle to bridge- if possible. > > > > > > > > On Jan 27, 6:32 am, Molly <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Do myths disappear? Joseph Campbell mapped common human myth > > > > around > > > > > > > > the word and through time to discover a mechanism something > > close > > > > to > > > > > > > > common memory - the expression of the same archetypes in real > > time, > > > > > > > > isolated incidents around the globe and at the same time. This > > > > > > > > phenomena has occurred throughout human history. This may > > tell us > > > > > > > > that it is not the looking back that is important, but as Vam > > says, > > > > > > > > looking within. > > > > > > > > > On Jan 26, 5:54 am, rigsy03 <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > What is original? I might argue that one is simply > > explicating > > > > what > > > > > > > > > already exists. > > > > > > > > > > Each generation assumes it has a distinct character- or > > needs to > > > > prove > > > > > > > > > that it has. > > > > > > > > > > Was thinking the reason myths disappear is because they were > > > > oral and > > > > > > > > > native languages are usually suppressed by the conquerors. > > One > > > > also > > > > > > > > > carries family myths- which interfere with deep > > communication. > > > > > > > > > > Yes- there are terrible inequities- all the more scandalous > > > > because > > > > > > > > > there really is plenty to go around so the root is greed and > > > > distain > > > > > > > > > for others. Governments only pretend to care for all its > > > > citizens- it > > > > > > > > > picks and chooses. > > > > > > > > > > We passed the Gilded Age- I would call this the Tinsel Age. > > > > > > > > > > On Jan 25, 9:45 am, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > I would say, Vam, that you often jump in the water with an > > > > 'entourage' > > > > > > > > > > of assumptive baggage. I probably dislike citation more > > than > > > > you and > > > > > > > > > > am not the first. Veblen would be a good start (to use > > some > > > > rough > > > > > > > > > > citation). These days, you can at least Google the name. > > > > When I > > > > > > > > > > started it meant a trip to the library. Anyone who has the > > > > chance to > > > > > > > > > > read a lot of what's available (this is still remarkably > > few) > > > > should > > > > > > > > > > discover most of what they thought their own ideas have > > been > > > > done > > > > > > > > > > before. The idea is no doubt to try to 'stand on the > > > > shoulders of > > > > > > > > > > giants' (itself a wisecrack by Newton on Hooke's dwarfish > > > > stature). > > > > > > > > > > The 'giants' always turn out flawed. Moses is a war > > criminal > > > > in > > > > > > > > > > Numbers 31, the Greeks, for all their argument, never > > produced > > > > a > > > > > > > > > > decent one against slavery (the lunatic-religious John > > Brown > > > > being > > > > > > > > > > better). Many, because they don't read enough, attribute > > > > 'relativity' > > > > > > > > > > to Einstein, but it has a longer and wider history. The > > > > chattering > > > > > > > > > > class reinvents the square wheel all over the place. > > > > > > > > > > > What if the best of our system is fascist and we have > > grown in > > > > such > > > > > > > > > > culture, or a caste system? By what processes do we get an > > > > > > > > > > understanding for change from such? Western propaganda > > would > > > > have us > > > > > > > > > > believe pouring resources into the gullets of the rich is > > > > sensible. > > > > > > > > > > We all live in the gutter. Only some of us lift our eyes > > to > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > stars. If only I was smart enough to have been first to > > that! > > > > (Oscar > > > > > > > > > > Wilde) A common jibe by academics is that common sense is > > > > that which > > > > > > > > > > allows us to believe the world is flat - yet flat-earth > > was an > > > > > > > > > > academic construction - one can actually see the curvature > > of > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > Earth. > > > > > > > > > > > What we need is reliable collective memory. Given our > > > > capacity to > > > > > > > > > > pervert, citation is usually used in a highly selective > > manner, > > > > > > > > > > usually along with a core academic (religious etc.) > > narrative > > > > of > > > > > > > > > > exclusion of competing argument. Control of what is > > reliable > > > > memory > > > > > > > > > > is, of course, just what those in power want to maintain - > > > > perhaps > > > > > > > > > > through principles of Home and Vanity. I will always > > prefer > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > margins to this, remembering that to oppose tyranny can > > > > pervert into > > > > > > > > > > its support. > > > > > > > > > > > Deconstruction is only a beginning. I believe its spirit > > > > concerns a > > > > > > > > > > defeat of madness that includes rationalist fantasy and > > animal > > > > > > > > > > consensus (which I sense as grasping, selfish individualism > > > > easy to > > > > > > > > > > rule). > > > > > > > > > > > On Jan 25, 3:26 am, Vam <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > "Is this not an important part of the dynamic > > > > multidimensional mind > > > > > > > > > > > Vam, can you find nothing of value with meeting this > > view at > > > > least as > > > > > > > > > > > a challenge?" > > > > > > > > > > > > James, starting with God is a bad idea. Perhaps, ending > > up > > > > at it is > > > > > > > > > > > what needs to happen. Dawkins was in Jaipur here and I > > found > > > > his view > > > > > > > > > > > a lot more balanced, less bigoted and militant. > > > > > > > > > > > > And Neil is right : it must deal with morality. Where his > > > > discourse > > > > > > > > > > > runs dry is when he is quoting other people ! That is > > also my > > > > > > > > > > > compelling logic against intellectual property rights. > > What > > > > damned > > > > > > > > > > > "rights" on knowledge of any kind ? Or, why must we have > > to > > > > give > > > > > > > > > > > references, when all we wish to say is ours, with us ? If > > > > it's not > > > > > > > > > > > ours, for us to say, we should STFU ! > > > > > > > > > > > > The formal aspect of Truth or truths is onerous. There > > are > > > > libraries > > > > > > > > > > > out there where it goes dry. It is the informal one that > > I > > > > wish to put > > > > > > > > > > > across : it is mine... and for that reason should be > > > > everyone's, of > > > > > > > > > > > everything. And that ( informal aspect ) is... HOME. The > > > > search for > > > > > > > > > > > that place which is truly ours, where we can rest without > > > > fear, free > > > > > > > > > > > and fulfilled, which nothing in the whole universe can > > take > > > > away from > > > > > > > > > > > us. Truth is our Home. > > > > > > > > > > > > This is no parable I've begun. People are spent for and > > on a > > > > " home " > > > > > > > > > > > for themselves. They build, buy, rent one for the body... > > > > house or > > > > > > > > > > > apartment, car or craft. But then the worst a-holes > > amongst > > > > us come to > > > > > > > > > > > believe that home they are so invested on is also the " > > home > > > > " to > > > > > > > > > > > their emotion, to their thought, their identity, and > > their > > > > happiness > > > > > > > > > > > too ! Well, it is and it definitely isn't. > > > > > > > > > > > > The better ( a-hols ) take on a wife, friend, progeny or > > pet, > > > > > > > > > > > community or cause, to engage their > > emotion-thought-identity > > > > where, > > > > > > > > > > > with whom or which, one then feels at home. Of that our > > > > thought is > > > > > > > > > > > preoccupied... that same ' faculty ' that had been used > > to > > > > focus on > > > > > > > > > > > money to buy the home, on the value of food and worth of > > > > delicacies, > > > > > > > > > > > on the relevance of what is beneficial and serves our > > > > purposes and > > > > > > > > > > > what does not. > > > > > > > > > > > > That pitch of ' acquisition,' value, worth, relevance... > > is > > > > also there > > > > > > > > > > > in our > > ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
