Message or Massage? Your choice

Blog number twenty four

This entry into this my Blog called, "Bodhi's Harangeout," is a series of entries I made while posting on a message board.  During this time I was doing a lot of writing, so I didn't feel like writing in here.  Yeah, yeah, I know I said my eye and all that, and that was partly true, but...  Anyway, my son kept haranguing me to keep up my blog and I got tired of the bullheaded ignorance and pridefulness of most of the people on the board - like talking to my cat, so we got the bright idea not to waste all of that message board writing and simply cut and paste it into here.  Good idea, yes?  I thought so too.

I will, from time to time continue posting the message board entries along with stories from my eventful life.

You are now up to date. Try to keep up.

                                           *************

These first three entries are just the examples I plucked from the myrid number of similar postings.  They just went on and on in a very similar vein.

kennethamy:There are a lot of other kinds of sentences that do not describe besides "I promise so-and-so". For example: "Hello"; "What time is it?"; "Hooray for the Yankees!" And, in normal use, "I am glad to have met you".

EthnAlln: Yes, language has a huge amount of variety. I still regard myself as a novice in what Bertrand Russell called the "philosophy of logical analysis," so I make any pronouncements very hesitatingly. I assume, since nearly everything I take an interest in turns out to have been studied deeply and at length already, that there are sources where the manifold types of human utterances are catalogued and classified. But that's too big a project for me to undertake at the moment. I'm reading early Wittgenstein right now in my spare time

kennethamy: Early Wittgenstein is passe'. That doesn't mean it isn't true. Just passe'. But then, so is late Wittgenstein

Bodhimalik: These posts illustrates the deficiencies of philosophy students. It has been said that they herd other people's cattle.

Can't you think of things for yourself and ignore what someone else - no matter how much an"authority," has said about it? You have the opportunity to look at the exact same Reality that everyone else does. Why can't you report what YOU see rather than report what someone else said that they saw?

   
mirage:  [Quoting Bodhimalik's: [These posts illustrates the deficiencies of philosophy students. It has been said that they herd other people's cattle.]
Can't you (Bodhimalik) think of things for yourself and ignore what someone else - no matter how much an"authority," has said about it?

Odysseus TheInnKeeper: Originally Posted by Bodhimalik
Can't you think of things for yourself and ignore what someone else - no matter how much an"authority," has said about it?

Ah Sho Nuff can, in hearts

Bodhimalik: That's better, guys. You didn't need any authority to give you those ideas, now did you? Don't you feel the tiniest bit liberated?

kennethamy: To cite a philosopher is not necessarily to argue from authority. It may be simply because the philosopher has put what I want to say, better. Or it may be to put what I want to say in context. In any case, you can't detach philosophy from the history of philosophy, in the way you can physics from the history of physics. Philosophy is imbedded in its history.

Bodhimalik: Yes, I agree with what you say here. You are correct.

I am not against an occasional quote where it fits better than anything I could think of. I am against hearing someone else's thoughts about existence when I could hear a direct account.

I have talked with people who, when asked a question, invariably answer with, "Well, Sarte said..." Drives me nuts. It's like someone telling you about a movie instead of letting you see it.

You see that all through posts on philosophy. "Fill-In-The-Blank said..." "Yeah, but didn't Fill-In-Another-Blank say...?"

These later posts, here - these people, and you, are describing their direct experience. Very refreshing for me. I hope for others too.

EthnAlln: What in hell is wrong with testing my own thoughts against what has been said by people of great intelligence and power of expression?

Bodhimalik: The thing wrong with it is that you willonly accept what already agrees with what you believe. Beliefs are what causes the stagnation in minds.

Look, your first beliefs were "borrowed" from your parents. "Daddy says..., so it must be true." Later on it becomes, "Teacher says..." And still later, "Experts say..."

What you believe now - about God, Life, America, is borrowed beliefs from your culture. Any new belief, in order to be accepted, must have all beliefs "rearranged" until the new belief will fit in. You never "test" your thoughts against others (look at what you do with my beliefs, for instance), you merely look for agreement.
                                             ***********
kennethamy: The French writer, Madame de Stael, once wrote:

"Tout comprendre, c'est tout pardonner" which in English means, "To understand all, is to forgive all". I think that's not only false, it is nefarious. No matter how much I would understand why Saddam did what he did, I would not forgive it.

The word, "understand" has two different meanings, often confused. It may simply mean that one knows why someone acted as he did. The explanation, in other words. But, it also means to sympathize with someone. de Stael's apothegm trades in on this ambiguity. (Semantics!). Do you agree with it?

Bodhimalik: I think "To understand all, is to forgive all". might be more acceptable if one were to use it in the same sense one may understand one's own behavior, given the same circumstances, thoughts, memory, instincts, emotions, etc.

In other words, if one were to look back on some horrible thing one did and realize that if everything were exactly the same - like a returning to the past, then one would have to do exactly the same thing again.

Using this idea, then if one were to have Saddam's exact memory, instincts, emotions, thoughts, circumstances, etc, then one would do exactly as Saddam did. Then one would understand and one would have to forgive, since it was completely out of the person's hands.

We are all exactly where we are today because of our past and our future - over both of which we have no control.

No es verdad?

Darth Dane: If there is no free will, and everything falls as domino pieces, no one/nothing has any responsibility: How could anyone/anything have behaved any different?

No free will, is the same as everything is destined to behave in certain ways.

Bodhimalik: What you say is undoubtedly true. The only quarrel I have with any of it is that free will is either given to us or not given to us. We have no choice in the matter. Responsibility, on the other hand, is a matter of choice, given the parameters of "free will." You may give me the responsibility for something, but I don't have to accept it.

I can see clearly that I have no free will, but to me that gives me an immense freedom. I get to ride the roller coaster at no cost and no effort on my part.

I also get to choose my responsibilities without any societal inputs.

I do not see "no free will" as being enslaved. In fact, I see it as an immense benefit

Garrett: You have no ability to make conscious decisions?

Bodhimalik: No more than does a computer. My decisions are made for me by my remembrances, my instincts, my desires, my thoughts, my emotions, my ambitions, and so forth - none of these of which I get to choose. They choose me. I can't even "not do something." That is chosen for me also.

 Garrett: I am sorry for your lack. I make conscious decisions, and commit voluntary actions. The world pushes me around, sure, but I push back on purpose.

Bodhimalik: You are a machine that thinks it has free will, is all. That's not a bad thing to be. A machine. There are immediate advantages.

Look closely at what you can "do." Grow another arm? Be interested in something that doesn't interest you - in other words, pick your interests? Choose what thoughts to have - how to make a time machine, for instance? Grow a different color bunch of hair? Digest rocks? Not digest bread?

Do you consciously raise your arm - pick which muscles to do what, or do you just will it to rise and it rises in a way totally unknown by you? Do you pick when to have your heart beat or lungs breathe? Do you pick when to get sexually aroused or when to get sleepy or hungry? Do you pick what to dream? Or when? Do you pick what your eyes are to see? Do you choose what sound is sensed by your brain? Do you choose what level of pain you wish?

What is it that YOU can "do"?

Hoodoo Ulove: You seem to be saying that because I can't do a lot of things, including wanting to do what I don't want to do, that I can't do anything.

Bodhimalik: No, I am saying that because you can't "do" anything - i.e., be the originator of an action, that you can't "do" anything. Ipso facto.

A plant can grow, and thus DO something, but can it "do" anything? Is the plant then a machine like you, or free willed like you?

Bye the bye, for various and sundry reasons, your belief in having free will is not in any way amenable to being changed. Why? Because your "free will" will not let you change.

A conundrum you say? You betchum, Red Ryder
   
                                  ******************
Bodhimalik: To be conscious is to be aware. Having consciousness is to be conscious.

What are you people doing, complicating something so simple? Why do you have to add so many wines and herbs to a pair of fried eggs?

If you want to do some pondering, ponder upon your own consciousness. That'll keep you busy for your lifetime.

Besides that, by trying to comprehend consciousness, you must of necessity use consciousness to comprehend it, which is impossible.

The eye cannot see itself, the finger cannot touch itself, the ear cannot hear itself. These thing are impossible and with a little thought you could have figured this out for yourself. Don't be so lazy with your thinking. Stop looking for thoughts in other people. Do your own work. It might turn out to be fun.
                                      
jaboteer: With epistemology in mind, I doubt the validity of your arguments in such a way that the scorching conclusions you have made falls to ashes like a burnt house of cards.

Bodhimalik: I don't like dealing with arguments. Something is either true (real) or it is not. What I or anyone else thinks about it is irrelevant. It is the facts upon which arguments are based that causes disagreements.

What I said is either true or it is not. It doesn't change in response to our opinions."The eye cannot see itself." How can there be an argument about that? 

jaboteer:The claim of impossibility needs to be adjusted seeing the same could have been said about trying to comprehend your thoughts. How could a thought comprehend a thought. 

Bodhimalik: Well, first of all, thoughts can't think.  And as far as being conscious of consciousness, You are conscious of the heavens - the stars, the space. You would not expect that you could be able to comprehend the inner workings of all matter of which you are conscious.

You do not comprehend exactly how it is that your digestive system turns carrots into blood, skin and hair. If you cannot comprehend just these small things that are in your consciousness, how can you expect to comprehend all of your consciousness? How can you ever expect to comprehend consciousness?

 jaboteer: Do you doubt there has been advances in thinking?

Bodhimalik: : I don't know what you mean by this. Do I think people think better now than they did in olden days? Do I think that thinking has been built on previous thought?

jaboteer: why do you submit such an argument restricting our search for truth?

Bodhimalik: It is not the search for truth that I advocate restricting. It is the search for answers that are impossible to find that I do not recommend.

jaboteer:  What may be impossible is the mathematical truth you have insinuated, but that very mathematical truth is based on another mathematical truth which may very well turn out to be false after all.

Bodhimalik: I didn't mean to insinuate a mathematical truth. What I am trying to do is to take things out of the mind and place them in their proper place as what "is."

As an example only, realize that mathematics is a made up game that humans play. There never was a mathematics "out there" waiting to be discovered. It was made up. Invented, not discovered. Logic and proofs deal properly with invented things. Another Mind is needed in order to deal with "discovered things".

Consciousness is a discovered thing.

Garrett: Quote:Bodhimalik "The eye cannot see itself." How can there be an argument about that?

The hand picks up a mirror - and lo!  The eye sees itself!

Quote: Bodhimalik: "Consciousness is a discovered thing."

Garrett: Consciousness is an experienced thing. You had to have been there.

I answered this reply from Garret, but my answer got edited into nothing by the host.  I got personal.  I hate stupidity.  I wish I could remember what I said.  I didn't think it all that bad, just pointed out his idiocy, I'm sure.

Ierrellus: If you believe Putnam, a mind is inadequate for the purposes of exploring the complexities of consciousness. Sorry, Putnam. A mind is all we've got for such exploring.

Bodhimalik: And it remains inadequate.