Philotic Web

Well, it's been a while since I last posted here, and I've spent a good part of that time away examining my philosophical and spiritual beliefs, trying to "dig deeper". When I left I was a staunch defender of Objectivism, or at least my interpretation thereof. I've since moved away from a lot of that framework, and have become more an more interested in Zen Buddhism and Daoism.

Before I'd struggled with the concept of No-Thingness, since I was trying to learn primarily from primary source material and wasn't getting the lingual disconnect between the eastern concept of No-Thingness and the western concept of nothingness. Now I've come more to understand life as a series of relationships and processes, instead of events and objects.

Any PWebbers care to share their insights, or direct me towards a good guide or teacher with regard to this sphere of thought?

Don't bother. You will eventually leave those constructs behind as well. Based on your previous conceptualizations and your current ones, I predict your next to be Deism and Pantheism/Panentheism. At least you're moving in the right direction if my foresight serves me.

I Timothy 4:3-4
For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths.

Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths.

Isn't that what happens with people who follows any system of beliefs (religion, ideologies)?

It's certainly can happen, and sadly often does happen. But it certainly needn't be what actually happens.

Even then: from the perspective of someone who firmly believes in their own religion, be it Shintoism, or Islam or Induism, Paul's words could be their own. Considering their own religion to be the truth, and other religions to be myths, beliefs pandered to the consumers' wishes.

And all of them have exactly the same basis to call their own religion "the truth". Same basis Paul had.

Don't bother. You will eventually leave those constructs behind as well. Based on your previous conceptualizations and your current ones, I predict your next to be Deism and Pantheism/Panentheism. At least you're moving in the right direction if my foresight serves me.

That's an impressive call. I did indeed find Deism a useful framework for about a year or two, and now Pantheism is close to how I'm considering things now. Care to share how you made that prediction?

I think you may have misunderstood, though - I'm not looking for something to convert to, or be the end-all source of righteousness in my life. I was just kicking around and stumbled across a lecture that made me understand the concept of No-Thingness a bit better, and now I'd like to see how deep the rabbit hole goes, so to speak. So if anyone wants to share good translations of primary materials, or good secondary ones, or just their own insights, I'd much appreciate it.

Read Ecclesiastes. No-thingness is not exclusive to Eastern philosophy.

The one Buddhist canon I still dig into is the Dhammapada, my preferred translation is available here. It's not focused on No-thingness, but that's only a minor portion of Eastern religion.

I made the prediction based on the experiences of others and my own personal experiences.

Even then: from the perspective of someone who firmly believes in their own religion, be it Shintoism, or Islam or Induism, Paul's words could be their own. Considering their own religion to be the truth, and other religions to be myths, beliefs pandered to the consumers' wishes.

And all of them have exactly the same basis to call their own religion "the truth". Same basis Paul had.

Insofar as anyone's religion fits with their experience and knowledge, I would certainly agree. It is less an issue of which religion you have and more an issue of custom tailoring one's spirituality or aspects of religion, which can happen with anyone and any religion.

That's an impressive call. I did indeed find Deism a useful framework for about a year or two

It survived that long? I've never understood how deism manages to provide anyone with a meaningful understanding of the universe. It's always seemed more to me like a useful political tool for those who want to pander to a religious population without having to accept any of the implications of theism. Though if there are any serious deists here, I'd be curious to hear your side of things.

Eh. I can say that the way I viewed it when I might have called myself a Deist is that ultimately there had to be SOMETHING holding the universe together. If you wanted to call it Physics, Qi, the Force, the Collective Unconscious, God. I tended to think that these were all driving towards the same singular truth, and whatever that was, the point of life and spiritual exploration was to figure it out, or at least tack as closely to it as possible.

For a time it was useful because I was still buried deep in my studies of physics at college, and the idea of an intelligent creator that had laid down or manifested itself in the form of natural laws was very easy to fit into that framework.

It didn't hold up under scrutiny. If anyone's got a better defense of it than, "It fit nicely with what I happened to be doing at the time," I'd like to hear it, too.

Now I've come more to understand life as a series of relationships and processes, instead of events and objects.

This is a fantastic way of looking at reality. My mold of reality follows that general concept, except I also include one other dimension to this whole theory; reality is nothing but a series of relationships and processes, however it is also completely subjective and residual of the mind.

Essentially nothing is real per se, because it is our senses that are perceiving the data that builds an image of a "reality" around us. The only true thingness is our mind, our consciousness, our 'I' thoughts.
I know, it's a very dissociated view.

I find that many eastern philosophies delve into the "self" aspect of reality. One really phenomenal thinker you may be interested in is Sri Ramana Maharshi and his works on Self-enquiry.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramana_Maharshi#Teachings

Essentially nothing is real per se, because it is our senses that are perceiving the data that builds an image of a "reality" around us. The only true thingness is our mind, our consciousness, our 'I' thoughts.
I know, it's a very dissociated view.

Frankly I'd go so far as to say that your thoughts, that is the ones you can "hear" and put into words are no more real than anything else. Anything that can be expressed in words can be said to not be true in some conditions. To quote Sagan, even a concept as simple as the number one has an elaborate logical underpinning. For something to be "true" it must be everywhere, always, and in all other considerable dimensions a present fact.

For example you aren't thinking now the thoughts you were thinking a moment ago, five minutes ago, or even five years ago, and yet you still know that you are the same person you were a moment ago, five minutes ago, and five years ago. Truth, or God if you prefer, is the thing that hasn't changed, the thing that was always present. Try to imagine the universe without space or energy - the concept is absurd, there can be no "somewhere" without these two, just as there can be no "someone" without God, or truth, or love or any of the other names we use to describe the same constant.

Perhaps this is what you meant from the start, but the only part of us that is real is the impulse we feel to pursue that constant.

It's not 'cogito, ergo sum...' It's "sum, ergo sum."

Care to explain the tautology?

Plato's ideas of the forms is pretty good. combine forms together inside your mind and it then changes the way you apprehend the forms emanations/copies externally from yourself.

also hylozoics is an interesting philosophy if your trying the hivemind route.

Hello Janus, You might find Nagarjuna, the Mahayana Buddhist scholar/teacher, and his writing on "emptiness" -- lack of inherent existence -- to be of interest.

Here's an article about him: http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Nagarjuna

I also recommend this article: Nagarjuna and the limits of thought as an intro by Western philosophers that might make Nagarjuna's most influential work Mulamadhyamakakarika (Fundamental Verses on the Middle Way) a bit more approachable for someone not grounded in Buddhist philosophy.