Nope, the right one: 
Now it’s
get it, got it, good.
Okay, but this is the philosophy board. Not a yak, yak, yak social media outlet The topic is “learning to think”. And it was posted in the philosophy forum.
I proposed this:
You’ll either pay homage to those who did explore the art of “thinking” philosophically down through the ages or you won’t.
Again, all we need is a context.
I pay homage to classical philosophers who admit to not knowing. i pay homage to eastern philosophies that advise to think less or else have simple thoughts.
Just because my approach to logic usage is different than yours doesn’t mean your art of thinking is better. 
Happy are the ignorant.
I suppose what has been learned is decidedly not to think.
I do think that simple-thought thing is a misinterpretation of Buddha.
He was advocating having the right thoughts, not simple ones.
In many areas of life, accepting of ignorance and simplicity of thought are the way to go. But in psychology, politics or engineering, nothing is ever simple, because nothing is ever monadic in those areas, which is why Nirvana feels so good when you’re used to politics. A mistake would be to try to apply blissful simple mindedness to psychology or politics. You’ll be deceived and more likely do ill than good. Fairly certainly in fact.
Politics is essentially evil, as in actively deceitful and violent, usually immoral more than merely a-moral; active intellectual grasp of will with these qualities is required for making sense out of politics. As Buddha recommended to have no evil thoughts, a Buddhist should not attempt to do politics, nor did the ascetic Roman wise men ever aspire to understand the machinery of the state.
The design of the original Roman state, by the way, is still the only viable form of democracy that I know. Party politics is absurd and never did work, only directly voting for people based on their character, in a system which is designed to disallow for unilateral policy making, is truest to human nature.
The Philosophy debates, disputes, and discussions ended 10 years ago.
I remember. I was there. I know what happened.
Discussion between Left & Right, Democrat & Republican, Liberal & Conservative, Communist & Nazi, is finished. There’s no point talking anymore. 2020 proved to everybody that we are at the point of violence. The recent death threats and threats of violence from WWIII, with the silent support and approval from most on this forum, also prove the fact. The mainstream-Left within the US is openly advocating Domestic Terrorism.
I consider them Traitors, Treasonous, and enemies of the Republic. They are not loyal to the US Constitution, and so they are self-admitted Non-Americans. This is also proved by their loyalty to Illegal Immigration. Nothing “American” about this new class of terrorism and terrorists.
Democrats are against Democracy (defrauding the election).
Liberals are against Liberty (Human Rights, Constitution).
The Left is now Right, Right is Left, society has turned 360 and completed the circle (supporting violence, ignoring Biden’s approval of Uighyer Muslim Genocide, pro-terrorism).
Well, I learned that I’m quite lucky.
I learned I should cherish every bit of intelligence i have today.
My freedom from all aversion seems to have worn off.
I don’t think I can meditate to that level again.
It was so nice, while it lasted.
Am not sure how to get it back.
I still have some degree of peace, so I’m not off my ass yet.
Years ago i thought that distrust of one’s own thoughts
was one of the few paths out of mind control.
That is hard to do though.
That’s all I’ve got for now.
Welcome back Jakob.
Okay, fair enough. In regard to the thinking that you do about abortion or morality or politics or sexual preferences or race or gender or any other subject that comes up in a philosophy forum, you note that you have learned to admit not knowing about them; and, therefore, to think less about them. Or, if you won’t go that far, at least attempt to think about them as simply as you possibly can.
As for any particular context here, what’s the difference?
You know, if I’m understanding you correctly.
And my argument is not that my arguments are better but that, in regard to “learning to think” about moral and political value judgments, my arguments are derived from the arguments I make in signature threads. The sort of arguments that in noting the contributions of the more renowned philosophers down through the ages, one would hope to encounter in a philosophy forum.
My only “thing” here then is to bring technical, academic, didactic arguments relating to “morality here and now, immortality there and then” out into the world of actual human interactions.
In other words, if, down the road, the sort of thing that you don’t know about the things above simply ever reaches that frame of mind, let’s discuss it.
Given a particular context.
Note to BB:
From my frame of mind, when one learns to think like this, everything gets crammed into a “general description intellectual contraption”.
“Accepting ignorance and simplicity” about what? In what set of circumstances?
Being deceived by “blissful simplemindedness” in regard to what psychological and political setting?
How, when, where and why is “politics essentially evil”? How would he make “sense of politics” in regard to one of the issues I note above?
As for Buddha, those who own and operate the global economy couldn’t agree more that the folks they exploit, use and then abandon steer clear of “politics”. Instead, let them remain on their “spiritual paths” and allow the rich and the powerful to sustain all that “materialism” stuff.
And, in regard to Buddhist thinking, I’ve been trying to bring enlightenment, karma, reincarnation and Nirvana down to earth now for months here: ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop … start=1950
And, if “the design of the original Roman state” were something that he could bring about, how might it be manifested as the “best of all possible worlds” given the issues I noted above. Let him establish what constitutes “character” among those able to both enact and to enforce actual prescriptive and proscriptive policies.
And then of course with him, there’s the part where all of this is subsumed somehow in such things as “value ontology” and astrology.
Just don’t ask him to bring those down to earth.
For example, in regard to astrology look where that got me here: ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop … 5&t=195495
No, in my view – and that’s all it is, my own particular subjective reaction to him rooted no less in dasein – the sort of thinking he has learned seems to revolve more around coming here from time to time and posting these at times esoteric and densely didactic assessments that seem to convey “deep insights”. That is until you do challenge him to take his own particularly grandiose TOE out into the world that we live in.
Hey Dan,
To think in words is a guarantee of being mind controlled - as you didn’t come up with these words. The only thought that is not controlled from the outside is nonverbal thought, which many people aren’t very familiar with. I do not mean dreamscaping, but abstract thought.
One pointed Zen is a good way of becoming more abstract, because the one point is as close to abstraction as visual representation comes.
I try to write only as a form of meditation. Obviously I don’t always succeed. Politics is a subject which completely obliterates meditation, as it is inherently deceitful and/or violent - given that it is about enforcing decisions which aren’t held by everyone in equal esteem.
See what I mean, Dan?
This seems to be insightful, right? Meditation.
Let’s all meditate on it for a bit. And, later, in incorporating it into what we have learned to think about in regard to all of the things that others don’t hold in the same esteem, we can come back to a discussion of them more in the way that those of character did back in the days of “the original Roman state”. Back when there was “a system…designed to disallow for unilateral policy making”.
After grappling first with…Nietzsche?
Berkeley Babes wrote, :
“WHAT IS YOUR CONTEXT FOR constant CONTEXT SEEKING?”
Context is overly abstract, too remote from literal defining moment. I would call contextual something which is more dynamic, like a chess game. The moves, some way ahead of any relationship with previous moves, leave huge gaps ahead.
What is constraining is the multiform connections between various former and later moves. The degree of right and wrong moves may determine the ultimate goal of the game played.
In this way , the verity of contexts may appear as shaded more or less empty or saturated scenes, as predicated as moving along more progressively , or regressively in relation to the set goal…
This is more definitive then attempts to define context in any modicum of value, for this results in increased uncertainty.
The closer the set of quantifiable progressions, the less uncertainty is knocked out learning. A totally regressed discontinuous set of variable functions reduces to near total ambiguity, partly differentiated sets of hypothetical suppositions, based entirely a mix of propositional simulations.
Easier said, families of resemblances and the totally regressive functional meta values become increasingly imperceptible by way of an amalgam of possible choices , hence knowledge becomes unscrambled.
Contextual uncertainty is like a beginner’s chess game, trying to guess the opponents breath of moves ahead.
The computer is winning chess, it’s history now that IBMs Deep Blue has beat the then current Russian Grandmaster.
So that brings on the idea that more memory entails more possibility for learning, and appears to signal the advantage of a-posteriori ive a-priori knowledge
Context matters of course, but it’s significance is reduced into more into more general sets. ( settings, contextually)
This dramatic elaboration of more remote settings, gave rise to the Birth of Tragedy, of the idea of the essential fade into larger inclusive sets.
The significance of this regression , lies in more neutral it insignificant. sets of specific reason , in connection ti a vast array of general sets, which need ultimately only very little contrast between the internal and external dimensions of contextual determinants.
God, energy and all else can regressively fit into this pantheistic grab bag, and it become the idea of the preexistence of the known, even as an eternally reoccurring set of phenomenon.
The philosophy becomes once again, a game supported by logically consistant sources if remote elements.
The question then becomes one, which should be asked, is learning by necessity, mode expedient, than learning then one defined by arbitrary sets consisting of less objectively convertible criteria.
there are mixes o between objective and subjective games and like and The Prisoner’s dilemma can show the level of necessary vs. contingent elements which shed light on the outcome driven by self serving and or other serving interests.
The more pressing the social to the detriment of more famial sets relationships, the more opaque and washed the individual learning performance becomes.
The correspondence between the dynamic participation and the formal necessary signal form different shades of meaning, defining the ’ contexts’ within which performances in the drama become more predictable, and objective.
The point is, we must not envision any objective relation as set in a fixed criterion of meaning
Have any of us could have gone through life without either forms of kearning, regardless how complies or trivial . No. Even rote behavior like learning by trial and error works as described, that game defined by loss and gain.
A gain is signified a saturation , while loss by further unsaturated values of composition. The interesting thing is that increasingly saturated vale does not always correspond to gain in significance.
As an example, in the game of gambling, for instance , a loss at times has more value, since it reduces motivation to gamble again, and in addition transvalue ethical to morall considerations of value.
The same idea can be found between ideological considerations, between material and spiritually vested value, if in fact such difference is recognizes.
We can unlearn even long standing moral imperatives for ethically vested liberal forms of thinking
Apparently, there is no general agreement on what thinking actually is - if there was then we are faced with the question of learning to think(what does it mean, learning to think?)…
…after this of course the question comes down to the meantime…
Has anybody else considered how loaded this question actually is?
So…how do we measure any progress?
Just do a statistical count of the socialists and see if it is decreasing.
Bro I learned to think like three years ago. I do this shit. Fuck outta here.
I think that comment takes us back to first learning what thinking really is.
Just an update:
I feel closer to freedom from all aversion again.
This time, it seems to arise from sheer energy work and will.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baphomet
I have a lot of calm thoughts.
I don’t feel passionate or polarized.
Some would say im too passive,
but i like being calm and peaceful.