You can access information on Robinson Jeffers, Ed Ricketts and the Pacific Grovers of the 1930’s easily on the net. I think you might greatly appreciate Roan Stallion and Rickett’s holistic philosophy of life.
Also, I think you are wrong to dismiss Sri Aurobindo as “superficial.” That wasn’t my impression at all. I’m going to read his book, The Life Divine, in the not too distant future… so I’ll report my views here at some point and let you know more of what I think about him and his teachings.
As for uncertainty, the idea is that if everything possible were to be known about the leadups, nothing would really be uncertain at all. But, since we humans are not privy to all the information, uncertainty for us might well be a distinct perception or idea.
And regarding anger, I don’t know if my view is a rigid fixation or not. I was just trying to say that anger is a natural emotion and that expression of it can be completely justified sometimes. If you don’t think so, then why do humans have that emotion and the physical manifestations such as heat and sweat to go along with it? What I mean by that question, is that it looks like the ability to express anger is a natural and healthy part of the evolution of the species.
You seem to be at least aware that you are not expressing precisely nor with reasoning.
Now, why are you expressing like that, especially when you seem to be concerned with how we should express (with less errors, and so on)?
Again, assertion without reasoning/explanation/etc…
Anyone can do what you are doing. Making baseless claims is very easy.
And if someone understood what I say, the person would not make baseless claims, repeated;y, as you have been doing. It’s because lots of what I’ve written is about being aware about perspectives and also showing them to others in communication.
Although you claim to have understood me, what you are doing in this thread isn’t supporting your claim. And I think it’s very easy to see it.
Now, it’s clear that you are making the “criticism” for the sake of clear communication.
(And you are communicating rather very poorly in this thread.(
To the point you raised, I responded to show where you missed to follow the perspective:
Also, if you understood what I’ve been writing, it’s pretty clear that I use “awareness” as the base of my perspectives, and I use the term in specific manner with associated perspectives like “focus of awareness”, “field of awareness”, and so on.
So, it should have been easy to follow the perspectives in the part you mentioned, if you were “so natural” in understanding what I say. But you couldn’t get it.
And you didn’t responded to the reply, either.
Another example of how you communicate.
I think you are talking about yourself.
I mean, you described yourself as " I have such a comfortable, natural (as in effortless) understanding of it ", while demonstrating otherwise in this thread.
So, in your “reality”, you understood me perfectly, which can be seen as taking yourself too seriously.
And I say so because your self contradicting behavior and obvious lack of reasoning have been indicating that actual understanding of yours (as far as what I’ve been saying is concerned) to be relatively poor.
Demonstrated level of understanding = Poor(or very poor).
The level of understanding claimed by you = Perfect!
Gentlemen - I am sure you are aware that this thread is in danger of being about two members, and not about the topic at hand. It’s a fine thread - let’s not let it fall to pieces.
Thank you for the suggestion, although the probability of me reading them would be low, to be honest.
I haven’t read a single book for last several years, and I’m only interested in talking to live person, directly, like in this forum.
That’s why I said it’s probably better to follow your preferences.
I think we would end up in the uncertainty, if we examine any certainty we are holding.
And the sense of “reality”, or “reality” is nothing other than the products of certainty, as far as I’ve observed.
The need for “Justification” is felt by some of us when something (anger in this case) is taken as something bad/wrong/etc.
Since I don’t consider anger to be bad/wrong in any absolute sense that I don’t feel any need for justification. On top of that, I think justification is futile, in a way, too.
I’m pretty selfish that I place my preferences over “evolution”, “natural”, “healthy”, “common sense”, “ethic/moral”, and so on.
So, the needs for justification doesn’t occur very often because I don’t feel bad with I what I do.
And I do manifest anger, sometime. Not very often, but it does happen. But I don’t make justification for my anger or that of others.
I think you can understand this thread is about any (unconditional) “reality” of any person and thus whatever a participant insists with high level of certainty (and especially without reasoning that includes conditions) is directly related to the thread.
[EDIT]
After a few exchanges with Faust, I decided to edit this post a bit.
Actually, I was just suggesting that you check out a couple of online sites, not books. Here is part of Jeffers’ “Roan Stallion” from: sites.google.com/site/jgbender/poetry :
Humanity is the mold to break away from, the crust to break through, the coal to break into fire,
The atom to be split.
Tragedy that breaks a man’s face and a white fire flies out of it; vision that fools him
Out of his limits, desire that fools him out of his limits, unnatural crime, inhuman science
Slit eyes in the mask; wild loves that leap over the walls of nature, the wild fence-vaulter science,
Useless intelligence of far stars, dim knowledge of the spinning demons that make an atom,
These break, these pierce, these deify, praising their God shrilly with fierce voices: not in a man’s shape
He approves the praise, he that walks lightning-naked on the Pacific, that laces the suns with planets,
The heart of the atom with electrons: what is humanity in this cosmos? For him, the last
Least taint of a trace in the dregs of the solution; for itself, the mold to break away from, the coal
To break into fire, the atom to be split.
Rickett’s ideas on holism, and phalanx man were incorporated by Steinbeck into the great novel, The Grapes of Wrath; and Rickett’s ideas on non-teleological thinking were fleshed out by Steinbeck in The Log from the Sea of Cortez. In his biography of Steinbeck titled The Intricate Music, Thomas Kiernan gives us this information on phalanx man, starting on p. 174:
Ricketts’ other holistic ideas are shown in The Grapes of Wrath when Jim Casy explains to Tom why he has to act on behalf of the people, because they are one and “All that lives is holy," and in The Log from the Sea of Cortez. With non-teleological thinking, humans move towards each other and act only in the now, with love and compassion, without judgment. There is no looking to the past for the purposes of blame, looking for causes and effects; there is only an acceptance of each other just as we are now, part whole and one. In this holistic view, how can we do else, for in essence helping and loving another is helping and loving ourselves.
You can probably tell that I am very fond of the idea of “non-teleological thinking” or modus operandi, which postulates “living into,” as put forth by Steinbeck and Ricketts in Log from the Sea of Cortez. (pp. 150-1)
Thank you. I may take a look if/when I feel like doing so.
I’m not really “holistic” like these guys, most probably, as I think the idea of “whole” is a kind of “reality” crated by awareness.
And I even consider the awareness to be a bit phony.
I use awareness as the base in my perspectives only because it seems to be the “interfacing medium” or mechanism between observation point and things observed.
So, I don’t praise awareness nor wholeness.
These are just passages, gateways, tools, to me.
But they seem to be inevitable passages, if we wanted to understand more deeply and precisely.
Another preference of mine is to remain very logical even in the area often treated in mystical, poetic, and other fashion.
I think we have the tendencies to abandon reasoning too quickly when things become subtle.
We can observe and obtain as much perspective as it pleases us if we are careful and precise enough in cutting through subtle zone (and often hard to see subconscious area).
When we want to do that, all sort of narrow mindedness connected to any of our “reality” becomes the obstacle that prevents us from freely taking necessary perspectives.
I have the strong sense that holism is just the reality of existence, as is, so to speak. It’s not really an opinion or a criticism of anything, really. How it relates to narrow mindedness is interesting, in that it could be understood that “narrowmindedness” would consist of any thought or meme that works on the principle of separation or fragmentation. Here one can look at Eastern philosophy and spirituality as a sort of guide with the view that external or physical reality is illusion while the true reality is holistic. Thus the thought-memes and divisions that separate people would tend towards fragmentation and chaos, both mentally and physically… and this pretty much coincides with what I see in the world around me and that I learn about through all kinds of sources. I guess that’s part of the illusion, too. )
Separation itself isn’t the problem.
And when we examine closely, all separation becomes blurred and vanishes, anyway.
It’s more of the “certainty” that comes with the separation.
And the certainty of separation creates the “reality” (or the sense of reality), as far as I’ve seen.
In other words, holistic people are attacking on the wrong front, most probably.
It’s because we would not take “whole” as an ideal when we know too well the any separation/fragmentation is temporary and arbitrary.
“Holistic” ideals are based on the conviction that things/minds are separated and fragmented.
It’s just like any “movements”. It’s based on the “reality” one perceives.
And to oppose, to counter that “reality”, one seeks “ideals” and “goals”.
But it’s the “reality” which is bogus, way overestimated and over trusted.
As long as we seek some ideal, good thing, better thing, right thing, or positive thing based on and against our “reality”, we are actually confirming and “energizing” the sticky narrow mindedness that makes us believe in the (negatively perceived) “reality”.
However, it’s necessary to seek positive, with logical integrity and honesty, to realize it goes no-where, most probably.
And unless we understand the futility of seeking in positives to our bone and even deeper, the subconscious desire to seek would remain, here and there, pushing us to do this and that, just like I;m typing this.
I think that’s a highly simplified way to categorize “eastern philosophy”.
There are differences between Hindus and Buddhists and all sort of schools of different place and time.
I think you are getting it.
Again, I would say it’s not the fragmentation, but sustaining the image of fragmentation.
It’s not the separation but taking the temporary separation as if it were permanent and so reliable.
It’s the stickiness of the focus. Taking some perspective too seriously (in our subconscious) that we (miss)take it as “reality” in our superficial and surface awareness.
And that’s why I say these semi-permanent state of narrow mindedness is making up our “realities”.
jonquil wrote: I have the strong sense that holism is just the reality of existence, as is, so to speak. It’s not really an opinion or a criticism of anything, really. How it relates to narrow mindedness is interesting, in that it could be understood that “narrowmindedness” would consist of any thought or meme that works on the principle of separation or fragmentation.
Nah replied:
The reality is that holism just is, it’s not something that one believes in as opposed to a belief or perception of the illusion of separation or division. I think that it’s that illusion that is mistaken for reality by many people. I’m not at all sure that this illusion can be attacked because, as a thought system, it is unassailable. In that sense, what I’ve been trying to say to you that there is nothing attacky or critical about holism… it just is. Yes, people can simply not see it or think about it, and they can continue buying into illusion till the cows come home… but that doesn’t change a thing except to provide another aspect to the varieties of illusion and experience. Actually in fact, the issue of holism itself sort of defies the ability of language to fit it into a discussion based on a perceived distinction of views… if you see what I mean.
Nah continues:
Well, here you are getting into distinctions and a kind of moral critique on both seeking as opposed to not seeking, and positive seeking as opposed to negative seeking, whatever that means. Yes, thinking based on illusion and separatism can be very sticky and difficult to change, but really I don’t think it matters what kind it is or whether one seeks something or not.
jonquil wrote: Here one can look at Eastern philosophy and spirituality as a sort of guide with the view that external or physical reality is illusion while the true reality is holistic.
Nah replies:
As far as holism is concerned, it really is that simple: there is the whole, and each part is also the whole; and there is the illusion of separateness and physical reality. Western philosophers like Plato and Kant also spoke to this: there is the thing, and there is the ideal; or there is the phenomenal world and the noumenal world, the reality that lies behind everything sensible.
jonquil wrote: Thus the thought-memes and divisions that separate people would tend towards fragmentation and chaos, both mentally and physically… and this pretty much coincides with what I see in the world around me and that I learn about through all kinds of sources. I guess that’s part of the illusion, too. )
Nah replies
Lol. Well… one either gets it or they don’t, or both…
Yes, that’s another way of saying that separation is not the reality, and that time and space do not signify in the “noumenal” or real source of this physical world. It also appears that our whole phenomenal world is created by thought, like a projection of the brain. Even quantum particles follow this scenario. One particle even exists for people in the USA but not for people in the UK; and one, I think it’s called the anomalon, exists depending…
Well, whether one takes something too seriously or not might make a difference in the relative stickiness of a stuck thought, but the actual thought itself is still making up one’s personal reality and that of the phenomenal world. Holistically, they’re all the same. Put that in your smipe and poke it. It’s all kind of mind-bending, really… but fun, too.
If you say something (in this case holism) as “just is”, you are taking it for granted, in a way.
And this indicates that it is a "reality"for you, in the sense I have been talking in this thread.
Now, there is nothing absolutely wrong with it.
I’m not trying to persuade you to abandon it or change your perception/opinion/conviction, either.
To me, when something “just is”, there is no more need to talk about it.
It resolves and it becomes “ïs is”.
And as I said in the previous post, I don’t like to declare something to be out of scope of logic/language too soon.
Most people have tendency to abandon logic/language when further examination is too hard or too painful or too threatening to one’s core beliefs.
It’s not moral critique. It’s just a explanation of mechanism I’ve observed.
I think you are not following the perspectives of what I said, here.
Certain eastern school of thought would laugh at the separation Plato made.
And for some schools, the idea that something is “real” is an illusion.
There are many schools of thought (and non-thought).
Maybe "holism"is a tool for you to see the world in a simplified way.
Oh, I said that because you took one perspective, and then flipped it and saw it differently.
I mean, you were applying different perspectives/
On the part of matter that doesn’t threat one’s “reality”, it’s easier to take different perspectives.
But when it gets closer to core belief and other sticky items, we can notice increased resistance to move away from the key perspective that support one’s “reality”.
“Holistically”, everything is the same. So, you can’t make any distinction.
In other words, when you are making distinction, you are not “holistic”.
And logical thinking cannot be done without making distinction.
As I don’t care about “holism” nor being “holistic”, I do make (temporary) distinction of sticky focus/perspective and fluid one.
Sticky perspective forms narrow mindedness and produces the sense of reality.
And I think “awareness” is another name of the sense of reality.
We feel we are aware (of whatever) when it has the sense of reality.
We are conscious and aware of things because they present (different degree of) reality.
In other words, we are the product of narrow mindedness, from the beginning, most probably.
I seem to remember Gandhi saying something to the effect that no matter whether you are a minority of one, the truth is still the truth. It is pretty simple and I suppose it might, in a way, obviate the need for more talk or language. The same might go for holism, but I don’t know that for sure. Yes, I do have trouble finding the language and ways to express thought around it; but that could well be the limitations of my own mind… though it could be the limitations of language itself as well. Either that or holism is a concept that works better without language or too much in the way of attempts to make it fit already formed thought structures and physical paradigms.
jonquil wrote:
Yes, thinking based on illusion and separatism can be very sticky and difficult to change, but really I don’t think it matters what kind it is or whether one seeks something or not.
NAH:
Maybe you could elaborate and explain what you want me to follow so that I can understand you better and think about it in a new way.
jonquil wrote: Here one can look at Eastern philosophy and spirituality as a sort of guide with the view that external or physical reality is illusion while the true reality is holistic.
Nah replied:I think that’s a highly simplified way to categorize “eastern philosophy”.
There are differences between Hindus and Buddhists and all sort of schools of different place and time.
jonquil answered: As far as holism is concerned, it really is that simple: there is the whole, and each part is also the whole; and there is the illusion of separateness and physical reality. Western philosophers like Plato and Kant also spoke to this: there is the thing, and there is the ideal; or there is the phenomenal world and the noumenal world, the reality that lies behind everything sensible.
NAH:
I don’t think that Plato or Kant were making separations, just distinctions or aspects of the same holistic reality from an ontological and epistemological point of view. What we know with our sense then is “phenomenal” … or illusion in the Eastern view… and behind or informing the “phenomenal” world is the “noumenal” world for Kant, called the “ideal” world by Plato, which exists outside of and uninformed by time and space, a priori, eternal and universal.
jonquil wrote: Thus the thought-memes and divisions that separate people would tend towards fragmentation and chaos, both mentally and physically… and this pretty much coincides with what I see in the world around me and that I learn about through all kinds of sources. I guess that’s part of the illusion, too. )
Nah replied: I think you are getting it.
jonquil answered: Lol. Well… one either gets it or they don’t, or both…
NAH:
Kewl. I guess it’s just six and half dozen, one of the other, as my sister once said.
NAH:
No argument here.
Nah wrote: It’s the stickiness of the focus. Taking some perspective too seriously (in our subconscious) that we (miss)take it as “reality” in our superficial and surface awareness.
And that’s why I say these semi-permanent state of narrow mindedness is making up our “realities”.
jonquil answered: Well, whether one takes something too seriously or not might make a difference in the relative stickiness of a stuck thought, but the actual thought itself is still making up one’s personal reality and that of the phenomenal world. Holistically, they’re all the same. Put that in your smipe and poke it. It’s all kind of mind-bending, really… but fun, too.
NAH:
Well, think of it this way. The world of sensible distinctions could be seen as an outflow of the “ideal” or “noumenal” order behind them. For Nicholas Cusanus, the world of matter or the universe is “explicatio,” an unfolding out of the “implicatio” or enfolding “God” or what I like to think of as Consciousness, and they fold together as “complicatio.” This is a view that I find very useful and appealing.
NAH:
Well, questioning holism or the language used to exlain it or to describe things in relation to a holistic view is one thing. Developing a sticky perspective around it is another, perhaps leading to a bit of narrowmindedness?
NAH:
A great psychologist by the name of Sam Keen once led a workshop on Questions. He said that a well-lived life involves the transition from received answers to personal questions. Another way of looking at this insight is to think of a person’s life and mind moving and changing from sticky or narrowminded thoughts to new thoughts and new ways of thinking. I like that.
I don’t buy that word of Gandhi, as I see all sort of “truth” to be just a “reality” for the person.
I know that many people seem to love the idea of universal truth that is applicable to everyone in everyplace and every time without exception.
But as long as the distinction of truth and non-truth is made by the person, it’s based of particular (and arbitrary) criteria of the person and thus pretty limited and conditional.
So, it’s just a “truth” or “reality” for the person (and for the time being) but not always applicable/acceptable, especially for others.
If you give “the out of logic/language” status to holism or whatever, and if you argue and insist about it, your actions are contradicting.
I’m not saying that contradiction is absolutely wrong.
But I think our logical mind feels bad with contradictions.
It’s just a matter of preference and sensibility, so to say.
I have had things I had trouble expressing in the past, and I continue to think about it, on and off, fror many years in some cases.
And I usually came up with satisfactory explanation/expression, later.
That’s what I’m doing in this forum (at least partially).
Well, you can read other threads of mine because I’ve already talked about it at least a few times.
But here is recap.
I do think aware awareness has the inherent tendency to focus and remain focused (thus creating sticky focus = narrowed vision or narrow mindedness).
However, depending on our degree and state of consciousness, it seems we can override this tendency and move our focus of awareness, pretty freely (although always within what we take as “reality”, if any).
In other words, it’s possible for us to understand the arbitrary and temporary nature of ANY focus of awareness or perspective, and to apply this understanding with our focuses.
As long as we live in human format (or even in non-human format), we are making distinction and focusing awareness in multitude of ways.
However, all of focuses don’t need to be taken for granted, as if they were absolute and permanent.
When we are not very aware about the nature of our “reality”, it presents itself without much possibility of doubt.
But when we understand the temporary and arbitrary nature of the focus,very well, below the skin and even deeper than bones, the sense of reality vanishes and the focus become just another focus we can take, if we wanted.
So, what I’m talking in this thread is not the separation/distinction/fragmentation itself, but how we see them and how area we are about the arbitrary and temporary nature of focus that creates separation/distinction/fragmentation.
Thus I’m not saying separation is bad.
I’m saying sticky focus equals narrowed vision or narrow mindedness and it gives us the sense of “reality”.
And it means we can detect our sticky focus when e0ver and where ever we take something as “just is”, “reality”, “fact”, “truth”, and so on.
Behind the “reality” or anything that gives “unexamined” (and especially UNCONDITIONAL/UNLIMITED) certainty and assertion, there is illogical thinking (or the lack of any valid thinking) and narrow mindedness that resists and side slides to keep the illusion (reality, certainty, etc).
Can you see they are separating things?
The “distinctions” are the separation they make without very logical examination.
They “caved in” for some reason. Probably to feel sure, even if it’s an forceful artificial certainty.
And this type of man made certainty (unlike the sense of reality that comes with our biological/instinctive set up) is the common back bone of religion, ideology, etc.
It’s a lie, in a way, and those who lie know it, at least semi-consciously.
And they usually try to keep the lie hidden (form their own view).
I think you are trying to put things away from zone we can logically evaluate. And you are doing it by using the (not logical) distinctions.
And to me, it’s a sign of sticky focus.
And the less known trick to release the stickiness is to stick on it as hard and precise as we can.
Also, moving from one sticky focus to another focus (to stick on it) is what some people do.
It’s pretty similar to going thorough different drugs/addictions.
jonquil wrote: I seem to remember Gandhi saying something to the effect that no matter whether you are a minority of one, the truth is still the truth.
Nah replied:
Not necessarily. If holism just is, it is also a universal truth. Whether you agree with or like this view or not is a matter of personal thinking, which also creates its own reality.
Also, some abstract ideas like truth are known by their opposites. That doesn’t invalidate the truth, it just makes it apprehensible and thing-y enough to deal with in linguistic and logico-spatial terms.
jonquil wrote: It is pretty simple and I suppose it might, in a way, obviate the need for more talk or language. The same might go for holism, but I don’t know that for sure.
NAH replied:
I don’t see a contradiction here. My difficulty with the language of holism is just that, my difficulty. It might have to do with my ability to express myself on this issue, or it might have something to do with the nature of holism itself… or both. It’s nothing to get your knickers in a twist about. It just means that I need to more reading and thinking on this matter, that’s all. Perhaps I need to move into the language of poetry instead, using metaphors and symbols more. I haven’t yet thought about it in that way, though, as regards this discussion.
There is always the ancient eastern idea of yin and yang. They can be seen separately but together make an undivided whole. The question is: can you have yin without yang, or yang without yin?
NAH wrote:
I agree that the expression of certain kinds of narrowminded sticky thinking can carry with it a very annoying and arrogant kind of certainty or entitlement. Some of it even takes the form of bullying and oppression.
However, I like to avoid taking this problem to the point of throwing the baby out with the bathwater, so to speak. Just because that kind of expression and thinking can do so much harm and stifle other forms of thought, and because it might be arbitrary and temporary in its focus, doesn’t obviate or preclude our being able to think about or apprehend holism or holistic thinking processes or ideas.
That’s the danger inherent in certainty and oppression. It can lead us to reactionary and equally narrowminded views. That is why I particularly like your ideas around un-sticking, awareness, and movement towards new and more flexible ways of thinking.
jonquil wrote: I don’t think that Plato or Kant were making separations, just distinctions or aspects of the same holistic reality from an ontological and epistemological point of view. What we know with our sense then is “phenomenal” … or illusion in the Eastern view… and behind or informing the “phenomenal” world is the “noumenal” world for Kant, called the “ideal” world by Plato, which exists outside of and uninformed by time and space, a priori, eternal and universal.
NAH replied:
Since I’ve already explained the way that the Platonic and Kantian views on reality work, perhaps this part of the discussion will bear no fruit. I clearly do not see that they are “separating things” as you do. What they are doing is showing how “things” are not essentially separate due to the “ideal” or “noumenal” timeless, spaceless, and holistic reality out of which they arise, and these “phenomenal things” are then, basically, an illusion and so is the perception of separateness.
I especially like Nicholas Cusanus’ explanation of this scenario, God being implicate, the physical world and universe explicate, and the two complicate… in a sense reminding me of Hegel’s dialectic: thesis, antithesis, synthesis.
jonquil wrote: A great psychologist by the name of Sam Keen once led a workshop on Questions. He said that a well-lived life involves the transition from received answers to personal questions. Another way of looking at this insight is to think of a person’s life and mind moving and changing from sticky or narrowminded thoughts to new thoughts and new ways of thinking. I like that.
NAH replied:
Nah, have you heard of Viktor Frank’s notion of “paradoxical intention”? I think what you’re recommending is a version of that. Do the opposite of what you intend, and what you intend takes care of itself. I suppose it relaxes or fools the mind into releasing the tightness of the fear around the sticky thought maybe. I like it.
I didn’t respond to that reply because you didn’t take the critique. Your response showed me you didn’t understand what I had said, and this lack of recognition clarified your lack of competence in practicing perspectives (or not being so narrow minded, or however you want to describe it).
Your “baseless claims” argument is the same. Anyone can make that argument to anyone at any time. It pretty much amounts to “I don’t see the reason in this so there isn’t any”.
You say I don’t communicate well, but when I tried you just ignored it and became a broken record player.
You have too much at stake here to accept criticism, so I’m not going to take my time anymore. Enjoy making your repetitious OPS again and again and again to please yourself.
When someone claims (or takes) something as “universal truth”, it usually means the person would not be able to see the claim/assertion as something conditional and limited.
I mean, when something is “universal”/“infinite”/“unconditional”, it becomes “a wild card” for the person play it in anyway s/he likes. And it destroys logical coherence/integrity of the person (at least about the matter).
This is another reason most religious people cannot think logically (in the sense of perspective based logic), very well, as they have wild cars like god, bible, holy spirit, etc.
Personally, I don’t like to be logically incoherent because it feels strange.
But I know many people don’t care at all.
And it’s a matter of preference.
Then you would not understand very well what I say.
If you try to think so that your thought would confirm what you prefer, you can always find a perspective that will affirm what you like.
And this type of thinking does not train you to think well.
If you want to think very logically, you need to apply a perspective onto all direction, upon things you like and you don’t like.
It’s to evaluate everything with the same evaluation method and attidute.
This will reduce the type of funny thinking like US government/citizens claiming that Irak to be a bad country because it has WMD.
Evidently, they are not applying the exact evaluation method to their own country, and some others.
And even some kids can detect this type of illogical thinking, actually a superficial reasoning only applied to particular direction to affirm one’s own ideals/beliefs.
But I’m not so sure if you want to think very logically.
As I said, I prefer to use logic, as much as possible. And I don’t think someone without instinctive sensitivity for logical coherence can use poetic expression very well, either.
I don’t think poetic expression to be illogical or above logic. I think it’s just more suggestive and also often multiplexed compared to linear logical expression.
In the exactly same manner, you can’t have “whole” without “separation”.
Holism is dependent upon the “recognition of the separation” as something persistent and solid.
When you don’t have this type of perspective on any separation, you don’t think of whole nor holism type of ideals because you don’t need it.
If you need “yan”, in this case holism, it’s because you are still believing in “yin” = the separation.
Obvious one is easy to detect, while subtle one like the belief in holism isn’t so easy because it doesn’t do any big visible harm to anyone
What you do is up to you. Please do whatever you like.
Many (or at least some) may like it until the point they realize that this perspective applies to any certainty, including some of certainties (or actually the illusion of it) one would not like to loose.
At that point, we can usually see people very strongly (or sometime softly) rejecting/denying/reacting to the perspective, to protect their cherished ideals/beliefs/whatever.
I know. Maybe you like them, or they are important for you.
And because of your inclination towards holism, you have the tendency to see separation as something (always) bad, ans thus you can be trying to avoid the perspective that associate them with the separation.
But it can be another reason. And I don;t think they are so important in this thread.
I’m not very interested in them, and it;s not me who brought them in.
So, we can leave them alone unless you still want to talk about them.
Let’s leave other people. I can talk from my experiences and you can talk from yours.
Isn’t it enough?
Maybe I’m more interested in disconnecting all sorts of “associations and links” that will form (subconscious but sticky) certainties while you are still interested in making/finding more associations and links.
It can be the reason you constantly find people and things that might be similar in a way.
Maybe I was like that till I started to realize the nature of certainties and our desire for certainties.
No. And to be honest, I don’t feel much interest in people you are bringing in.
I do have the interest in discussing with you, though.
There are many trick. And many different schools have used them in different ways, I guess.
But most failed in producing what they aimed.
At the end,only the intense desire counts. And it does so because there is no place for any lie in the well aligned thrust of the desire. It makes us crazy, a fool, outcast, etc. But it makes and happy even in the suffering caused as the by product because we are doing what we wanted to do.
Now, problem on many people is they don’t have strong desire and their desires aren’t well aligned.
So, they don’t know what they want and they do things they don’t really want.
It makes them frustrated and unhappy, and thus many people are seeking happiness.
We don’t care at all about happiness when we are busy doing what we want.
Well … there are tricks to eliminate, cut out, not so important desires …
But they will be useless unless one has strong desire to have strong desire.
It was in the thread I made and it was about the OP I made.
So, it was about my perspectives, which you took in a different way.
Your “critique” came out of perspective that did not follow the contrast I was making.
I explained where you missed, in the thread, and quoted it , again, in this thread, for you.
Lack of reasoning can be seen very easily in some cases.
When someone says “God is almighty”, for example, without why and if, it usually indicated the lack of logical perspective.
I will surely please myself.
That’s all I do.
And I do repeat many times because I’m not that lazy, and also I know too well it usually takes minimum 3 times or more for us to learn something.
When I was giving instruction, a sharp young military pilot might “get it” without any need for repeating.
But most others required 3 times minimum, and often even more.
Some of them needed to be told many many times in different ways, nearly every day.
So, I’m trained to repeat anything I’m willing to communicate for many times if I feel like doing so.
And these are pretty basic things for someone who has some experiences in learning/teaching.
And what kind of stakes are you imagining?
It’s just an internet forum discussion.
I’m not a professional philosopher or something who needs to defend his title or whatever important for him.
)