Philosophy is a waste of our time. Philosophers are like scientests; forever looking for more, looking for the reasons behind reasons behind reasons.

The more you look for, the more you will find, and when will you realize that it's not getting you anywhere!Everything is infinite and there is no end.

I wouldn't call all philosophy a waste of time.   Sure, there are lots of philosophers not worth reading, but there are a few exceptions, right?    a few gems hidden in the mud, so to speak.

I think I'm more inclined to agree with dinjin here; but of course, it depends what Laz means by 'philosophy'. Looking at its linguistic roots, love of knowledge is, in the main, a laudable tendency as it enables the subject to engage more fully with the world around them. As for the formal discipline of philosophy, admittedly it can become painfully analytic and overly esoteric at times. But I think it helps to become at least a little acquainted with a spread of philosophers to build a foundation, to use the knowledge as a springboard towards original thinking. For me, a personal philosophy is very important to provide a kind of framework for life, and in thinking thus, we create and become more fulfilled as our participation in life is sharpened.

I think of philosophy as finding out who you are, and of course, if you don't know who you are, what do you know?

Come on, give philosophy a little credit.

No way! after reading some of Simulrca and Simulation a thought hit home. Everything you need is now, here, nothing else matters.

I hate to quote Joe, but i think he said "concentrate on the now, live in the moment" I think he was right on this one thing.

My reasoning goes like this: Assumption (and its a big one!) We subconscienciously control this universe.
Borrowing a "Bad" idea from ascension; our desire controls our destiny, whatever we desire will appear as long as the desire is true and not poluted by other contradictory desires.

Then, because we as humans are searchers, we do what comes naturally, we have theorys and then look for evidence to back it up. We then build a model of how things are, and use that model to go a stage further, and build another model.

These models are great for deluding ourselves, and whether we are building a model of the universe or of atomic structure it's a simulcram, we have made it the way it is.

We can continue to do this forever, until we realise that it's not important, and it is not actually getting us anywhere. Any philosophy is just such a model, what we desire to see will be the way we percieve it, and then communicate it to tohters who will also see the same thing.

I remember the thread where we had a discussion about infinite, well i don't see that its at all important, infinite is all around us, so leave it!

An example, yesterday scientists announced across the world that they had proved the universal theory of heat death. How? they have measured the number of new galaxies being created in the universe is slowing. This is crap because we haven't been around long enough to measure the nature of the universe, but if we all start believing it, then it will be so!

You're right. That is a big assumption, one which you can't prove. Your experiment didn't even come close to proving it. I have truly wanted things, and those desires were not polluted in any way. But the sad truth is, you can't always get what you want, regardless of what anyone tells you. If you delude yourself into thinking you're going to get what you truly desire, you're setting yourself up for dissappointment.

Doesn't this sound like a religious claim to you? You get whatever you desire, but just in case it doesn't work out, it's your fault for having polluted desires. Of course, whether that's true or not is in the eye of the beholder. The spiritual always have a crude backup plan.

Ok time for some honesty.

This is a lame attempt at a sham thread, it is not my belief and it doesn't really hold together very well as you have all pointed out.

It was an attempt to spark some interest in this recently flagging board.

Sorry.

Does our Being consist in Samsara, or Nirvana, or the experience of both?  

If you answer Samsara or Nirvana, then why not the other?  If you answer both, then how is the importance of one related to the other?  

I had a vritti and decided to exercise some Yama!

QUOTE

Does our Being consist in Samsara, or Nirvana, or the experience of both? Â

Your question is a strange one, I can't figure whether it is a lesson for me to learn, or a lesson for others to learn from me?

What is a Being? can you define it for me? are we talking about chitta?

Does Samsara = Samskara?

Experience is irrelevent anway

no intentions of a lesson on my part.  Merely a small trickle of thoughts.   I am not in the business of sophistry.

Samsara means "to go around," "to spin." It's a cycle of existence in which our senses weave and spin our experiences of multiplicity, giving rise to such things as 'the world'.    Nirvana as an experience of one-pointedness or unity (or the Void) is the antithesis of samsara as an experience of multiplicity often involving the senses.  

By your 'Being', I mean your existence, or that which you are as you yourself experience it.

It's a funny thing that eastern religions place such great emphasis on one-pointedness, on Nirvana, as the way to free oneself from suffering.   As if suffering itself has any reality.

We need to increase our contrasts, to make our mountaintops higher, and our depths deeper.    

 So, uh, you say it has to be this Samasara, or Nirvana, or both. Why can't it be neither?

QUOTE

 So, uh, you say it has to be this Samasara, or Nirvana, or both. Why can't it be neither?

because we either experience unity or multiplicity, which correspond to Nirvana and Samsara.  

So wherein does our Being reside?   In the experience of multiplicity, in unitive experiences, or both?    If you still think 'neither' is an acceptable answer, then please elaborate.

 Hmm.... well, if you put it that way, I think there's a time and place for each.

Though, I really don't know why you didn't just say "are Beings divided or united?" instead of going Buddhist on me.

Hi dinjin,

I don't kow much about you yet, but would like to  :)

It sems obvious that you are not toeing the Yoga philosophy line, as you do not respond to my fishing.

Using a Yoga term your words do create some verbal delusions and do not appear to be the right knowledge! so perhaps you can tell me where you are coming from on this subject?

QUOTE

so perhaps you can tell me where you are coming from on this subject?

All that we experience as 'reality' is only appearance, or maya, and gives rise to samsara.   Underlying all of these appearances resides the Self; we are pure, divine, eternal consciousness, or Atman, or whatever name you prefer to call it.  This is one of the fundamental principles of Advaita Vedanta meditation.   While some view maya as meaning that nothing is real, others view the illusion of maya as being shakti, the creative force of the universe. In this way, maya is experienced both as unreal and, at the same time, as the beautiful manifestations of the universal oneness.  But the question I posed originally is whether our Being consists simply of the Self, whether it includes maya, whether it is maya, or whether it's something altogether different.  

It's fine to experience the Self through one-pointedness,  but is this where our true identity resides, or does our true identity include maya and the experience of multiplicity?

It's just something to think about.   And here's something else:   we perceive the world in many different ways, but most people habitually segment their perceptions for the purposes of 'object recognition'.   That is, you look in a room, and you see chairs and tables and other 'objects', but is this really valid?   These boundaries that we place on 'objects', and object segmentation and recognition in general, are artificial in the sense that everything is entertwined with everything else; you can't legitimately segment and separate objects from their environment while maintaining that such a conception of reality has any validity independent of your particular manner of conception.   In other words, the boundaries that we normally place on objects when we engage in object identification are artificial.   Try this: try to perceive your environment without engaging in object segmentation and recognition.  Try to perceive your environment as a whole, without segmenting out objects with boundaries.  Try to perceive your environment as an aesthetic experience, and then try to experience the meaning contained therein.  It's quite a remarkable experience.  And it's such an experience that prompted my original question of whether our Being consists in nirvana, or the unity of the Self, or whether it consists in samsara, maya, and multiplicity.

It's just something to think about.

 Something else to think about: this thread is a bunch of mumbo-jumbo nonsense.

Joe's cause will never die.

I don't really see the point in capitalizing 'self'. It's not really a proper noun.

How does anyone know that anyone acheives Nirvana if they don't take their word for it? I'm not swayed that easily.

QUOTE

this thread is a bunch of mumbo-jumbo nonsense.

for you, it is what you make of it.  

QUOTE

  I don't really see the point in capitalizing 'self'. It's not really a proper noun.

perhaps you're a first-born or you're very anal-retentive (or maybe neither).   Do you always follow rules and convention, and if so, then what makes you think that others should follow suit?   dOeS It rEalLy MaTteR WhaT i ChoOse tO CapiTaLiZe?   Doesn't the meaning still get across?   Isn't it the meaning that you're interested in, or would you rather focus on obeying rules, rules that I don't have a problem overstepping?

QUOTE

How does anyone know that anyone acheives Nirvana if they don't take their word for it? I'm not swayed that easily.

for certain, don't take my word for it.   From my perspective, I merely spoke a few of my thoughts openly and honestly.  But you can believe whatever you will since I've no intention of imposing my beliefs on others.   For me, it suffices that I express myself as I will, and that those with eyes to see, will see.  
 

i think our being resides in nirvana, and extends into samsara. folds into samsara. something
becuz when i take off my meme-suit who am i? i am atman.

i tried really hard to look around the room without object segmenting, i couldnt do it

Right..... :

You know, it's more a matter of politeness to use correct grammar and punctuation, because when you capitalize words that aren't usually capitalized, it seems like you're giving a different meaning to the word, and are therefore not getting your point across. See what I mean? Please don't be more confusing than you need to be.

I get the feeling from your answer that we are once again talking about faith-based assumptions. Unless you can tell me otherwise, I'm going to exit stage right....

Too bad Joe isn't around to babble at anymore on the other threads.

I realize how late I am to this discussion. Nevertheless, here is my contribution.

"Each problem that I solved became a rule which served afterwards to solve other problems."
             -Rene Descartes (1596-1650)-

i think calling something a waste of time is non productive,
every action has a reaction!
once bitten twice shy!
a lot more can be learnt from a mistake.

Your first statement in itself is contradictory. "Calling something a waste of time is non-productive." You're saying that calling something a waste of time is a waste of time!

Of course you can waste time... by not making mistakes or acheiving anything. There is no productivity in that process. That's what this thread would be if I went through what I already went through with Joe on faith. Plus, I'd bore the crap outta everyone that's heard it all before.

Oh, and uh, Snowflake, I welcome you, but what excactly does that contribute? ;D

QUOTE

Your first statement in itself is contradictory. "Calling something a waste of time is non-productive." You're saying that calling something a waste of time is a waste of time!

There is no contradiction with the claim that calling something a waste of time is a waste of time since the claim makes no appeal to not being a waste of time, whereas you seem to incorrectly assume that it does.  Think about it.

Owww.... head... hurt... Hulk.... smash! ;D

No, I see what you're saying, but what I meant wasn't contradictory... maybe hypocritical? Something like that.

Sophistry, ambivalence, vacillation, obscurity, etc: these are the quintessential wastes of time, and therein lies their power.  When philosophy functions in this respect, that is, when the limits of knowledge and certainty are exploited to justify some preconcieved belief system by means of obscurantism, then philosophy is indeed a horrendious unforgivable waste of time.

I see much of this on these boards and many people taken in by such pseudointellectualism.  The crossroads of religion and philosophy are treacherous and one must take care not to mistake one for the other.  Philosophy despite its long history of universal system building has in modern times largely come to abandon its preoccupation with metaphysical claims.  If functions hand in hand with empirical science as a safeguard against the ubiquitous challenge of every preacher, prophet, and two-bit guru's transcendental claims.  Belief is one thing, knowledge is another.  A crutch may help you walk, but it doesn't mean your leg is broken.

If you call something a waste of time, and if as a result of your intervention the situation improves, you have not wasted your time.  It may not be a contradiction, but i certainly isn't a valid claim.

if i make a mistake then i learn from it, how can that be a waste of time.
you could say that there are some who would never learn,
but by them making mistakes it could effect others into change, i dont think a person can waste time,its always wasting anyway.
time stands still for no one!

QUOTE

Do you always follow rules and convention, and if so, then what makes you think that others should follow suit?   dOeS It rEalLy MaTteR WhaT i ChoOse tO CapiTaLiZe?   Doesn't the meaning still get across? Â

Rules for rules sake are as you say, meaningless, but if a rule reveals the sattwa (the ideal) in something then that should be persued. Although not to any extreme, as yoga philosophy will have you believe that balance is the key. Not to much Sattwa (perfection), Tamas(obstacles), or Rajas(will).

QUOTE

Isn't it the meaning that you're interested in, or would you rather focus on obeying rules, rules that I don't have a problem overstepping?

I believe that consistently overstepping rules is as bad for you as blindly following rules.

If the meaning is dirty and needs clarification; rules should be applied, or broken, to reveal the meaning within, but always with moderation, to return to centre and the balance of the three gunas.

This Yoga stuff makes a lot of sense

As for dinjins idea of observing without attaching meaning, I was able to do it easily and it resulted in a lot of tidying up before I was happy with the view!

 Judas H. Priest! What the hell are you weirdos talking about?

Look, 'believe' it or not, you can waste time and not make any mistakes by doing it. If I'm in a coma or unconscious I'm wasting time. What did I learn? Not to be in a coma? Gimme a friggin break.

The discussion is pointless because whether something is a waste or not is objective. Just forget it. Someone once told me in a blast of confused fury that if life has no point, we're just delaying the inevitable. The simple response: I'd take life rather than the alternative.

The 'breaking rules' thing is something I quite agree with you on, Laz. I'm taking art classes, and my first teacher had the nerve to tell me that art is about breaking rules. What a load of garbage! Sometimes I don't see the point of art and  poetry in the first place.

But I participate anyway.  :-/

QUOTE

Sometimes I don't see the point of art and  poetry in the first place.

It's just another way, like writing, of expressing yourself, at least that's how I treat it  ;)

PS: if my talk of yoga is annoying people please tell me to STFU! I thought there were some people on the board who already understood yoga and I could use my new knowledge to share with them, alas i'm not getting very far  :-/

veda, dinjin, anyone fancy talking yoga? failing that, tell me what you have studied, and i'll go and study that as well, and then we'll have a chat about that

Well, yes, but if throwing a bunch of colors on a canvas with no distinct shape and calling it something artsy... people need to stop.

Expressing yourself should not have to break rules!

QUOTE

Well, yes, but if throwing a bunch of colors on a canvas with no distinct shape and calling it something artsy... people need to stop

I quite agree, until you ask some nice young ladies to roll around in it an leave impressions in the paint, mmm  ;)

Now that's art!

"everything is art" - marcel duchamp
http://www.freshwidow.com/fountain.html

 If that were true there would be no point.

I'm locking this thread, because it sucks now  :-/

Please somebody start something fresh