As Byrnzie's article points to: "Writing within the tradition of empiricism, he argues that impressions are the source of all ideas."
According to Hume they are. Kant took it a step further and introduced our cognitive make-up into the equation. He also posited the 'neumena', or that which shall be forever unknown to us. That which lies beyond the range of our perception. Schopenhauer then took Kants ideas and sprinkled some eastern mysticism and philosophy onto them. I believe that Schopenhauer finally nailed it.
Yet, you can not prove beyond reasonable doubt any of your supernatural experiences. Egoism is also common in posts of this nature. Claiming that you are more enlightened than me for some metaphysical thing which you can not prove to me, lest I become the same as you, at which time it may still only be an illusion. You pose an argument that is neither provable or falsifiable and therefor I can't saying anything about it.
Again, you seem to not understand what I am saying if you are calling me an egotist. Being an egotist means one is excessively tied to the ego. I'm actually giving all credit for my experiences to that which is beyond my ego!
Obviously you don't like that I've had my experiences, or that I talk about them. The fact of the matter is, the only reason I put myself into any talk of "levels of consciousness", is because you like to say it is psychosis that causes me to talk like this. Therefore I am willing and able to assert otherwise, and to back up my own assertion with the works of those who study stages of consciousness.
You are the one who is claiming you are not enlightened. I am merely validating your experience. When you are able to talk about seeing the light and being attuned spiritually and when you display understanding of it, I will validate that understanding, too.
The only reason I ever talk about this is because I am 100% certain anyone can achieve attunement with their own potential. I know undoubtedly that any one individual is stunningly amazing beyond belief. And that each person is the center unto their own universe. If you think I am looking down on you, that is a product of your own imagination.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Again, you seem to not understand what I am saying if you are calling me an egotist. Being an egotist means one is excessively tied to the ego. I'm actually giving all credit for my experiences to that which is beyond my ego!
Obviously you don't like that I've had my experiences, or that I talk about them. The fact of the matter is, the only reason I put myself into any talk of "levels of consciousness", is because you like to say it is psychosis that causes me to talk like this. Therefore I am willing and able to assert otherwise, and to back up my own assertion with the works of those who study stages of consciousness.
You are the one who is claiming you are not enlightened. I am merely validating your experience. When you are able to talk about seeing the light and being attuned spiritually and when you display understanding of it, I will validate that understanding, too.
The only reason I ever talk about this is because I am 100% certain anyone can achieve attunement with their own potential. I know undoubtedly that any one individual is stunningly amazing beyond belief. And that each person is the center unto their own universe. If you think I am looking down on you, that is a product of your own imagination.
Likewise, I believe and have support in my assertion that your experiences were not real, that their is no higher self and realization of causality is enlightenment. When you are able to talk about determinism I will validate it for you.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Likewise, I believe and have support in my assertion that your experiences were not real, that their is no higher self and realization of causality is enlightenment. When you are able to talk about determinism I will validate it for you.
Additionally, I have the support of many scientists that study consciousness.
Dr. Susan Blackmore, Psychologist, Physiologist and Parapsychologist being one of them.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Likewise, I believe and have support in my assertion that your experiences were not real, that their is no higher self and realization of causality is enlightenment. When you are able to talk about determinism I will validate it for you.
Assert away. What I hear is that you don't believe me so you are showing me your own personal belief. A belief is different than a "knowing". Think about it, if you claim there is no higher self, what you are saying is that "to your knowledge" there is no higher self. I don't dispute your knowledge. It is what it is. At the same time, I also have my own knowledge.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Yet, you can not prove beyond reasonable doubt any of your supernatural experiences.
And there is much in this world and in human consciousness that is beyond the grasp of science. Rationalism, and it's extension in science, does not define the limits of consciousness. Human awreness and perception cannot be narrowed down to mere rationalism.
"We have good reason to believe that consciousness arises from physical systems such as brains, but we have little idea how it arises, or why it exists at all. How could a physical system such as a brain also be an experiencer? Why should there be something it is like to be such a system? Present-day scientific theories hardly touch the really difficult questions about consciousness. We do not just lack a detailed theory; we are entirely in the dark about how consciousness fits into the natural order.
Many books and articles on consciousness have appeared in the last few years, and one might think that we are making progress. But on a closer look, most of this work leaves the hardest problems about consciousness untouched. Often, this work addresses what might be called the "easy" problems of consciousness: How does the brain process environmental stimulation? How does it integrate information? How do we produce reports on internal states? These are important questions, but to answer them is not to solve the hard problem: why is all this processing accompanied by an experienced inner life? Sometimes this question is ignored entirely; sometimes it is put off until another day; and sometimes, it is simply declared answered. But in each case, one is left with the feeling that the central problem remains as puzzling as ever. ...
Physics and cognitive science do an excellent job within their own domains, and I have not tried to undermine them. For example, I have not disputed that the physical world is causally closed or that behavior can be explained in physical terms; but if a physicist or a cognitive scientist suggests that consciousness can be explained in physical terms, this is merely a hope ungrounded in current theory, and the question remains open." http://consc.net/book/intro.html
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
A supernatural experience is in no way lessened in it's significance for an individual simply because scientists are unable to verify it. It's not human consciousness that's lacking here. It's the limited scope of the scientific eye that needs to be questioned. Supernatural experiences have been occuring for thousands of years. Every culture outside of our recent industrial civilization was a culture who's religious beliefs centered around animism, and shamanism. The Ancient Egyptians, the Celts, the Australian Aborigines, the Mayans e.t.c.
Do you think that it's possible for an entire people to delude itself so completely for 5 or 8 thousand years? I'm not talking about a religious engagement that resembles anything like that which we ascribe to Christians, or Catholics. I'm refering to a religious belief and involvement which imbued and influenced every facet of everyday life. A living, physical, and immediate religious life. I don't think that people could delude themselves that fully and for that long. I therefore believe that we have a lot to learn from these cultures and from those tribal societies that still exist in the world today.
According to Hume they are. Kant took it a step further and introduced our cognitive make-up into the equation. He also posited the 'neumena', or that which shall be forever unknown to us. That which lies beyond the range of our perception. Schopenhauer then took Kants ideas and sprinkled some eastern mysticism and philosophy onto them. I believe that Schopenhauer finally nailed it.
Cool stuff: "For Schopenhauer, human will had ontological primacy over the intellect; in other words, desire is understood to be prior to thought, and, in a parallel sense, Will is said to be prior to being. In attempt to solve or alleviate the fundamental problems of life, Schopenhauer was rare among philosophers in considering philosophy and logic less important (or less effective) than art, certain types of charitable practice ("loving kindness", in his terms), and certain forms of religious discipline; Schopenhauer concluded that discursive thought (such as philosophy and logic) could neither touch nor transcend the nature of desire—i.e., Will. In The World as Will and Representation, Schopenhauer posited that humans living in the realm of objects are living in the realm of desire, and thus are eternally tormented by that desire (his idea of the role of desire in life is similar to that of Vedanta Hinduism and Buddhism, and Schopenhauer draws attention to these similarities himself). ...
Schopenhauer's identification of the Kantian noumenon (i.e., the actually existing entity) with what he termed Will deserves some explanation. The noumenon was what Kant called the Ding an Sich, the "Thing in Itself", the reality that is the foundation of our sensory and mental representations of an external world; in Kantian terms, those sensory and mental representations are mere phenomena. Schopenhauer departed from Kant in his description of the relationship between the phenomenon and the noumenon. According to Kant, things-in-themselves ground the phenomenal representations in our minds. Schopenhauer, on the other hand, believed phenomena and noumena to be two different sides of the same coin; noumena do not cause phenomena, but rather phenomena are simply the way by which our minds perceive the noumena, according to the Principle of Sufficient Reason, which is explained more fully in Schopenhauer's doctoral thesis, On the Fourfold Root of the Principle of Sufficient Reason." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Schopenhauer
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Cool stuff: "For Schopenhauer, human will had ontological primacy over the intellect; in other words, desire is understood to be prior to thought, and, in a parallel sense, Will is said to be prior to being. In attempt to solve or alleviate the fundamental problems of life, Schopenhauer was rare among philosophers in considering philosophy and logic less important (or less effective) than art, certain types of charitable practice ("loving kindness", in his terms), and certain forms of religious discipline; Schopenhauer concluded that discursive thought (such as philosophy and logic) could neither touch nor transcend the nature of desire—i.e., Will. In The World as Will and Representation, Schopenhauer posited that humans living in the realm of objects are living in the realm of desire, and thus are eternally tormented by that desire (his idea of the role of desire in life is similar to that of Vedanta Hinduism and Buddhism, and Schopenhauer draws attention to these similarities himself). ...
Schopenhauer's identification of the Kantian noumenon (i.e., the actually existing entity) with what he termed Will deserves some explanation. The noumenon was what Kant called the Ding an Sich, the "Thing in Itself", the reality that is the foundation of our sensory and mental representations of an external world; in Kantian terms, those sensory and mental representations are mere phenomena. Schopenhauer departed from Kant in his description of the relationship between the phenomenon and the noumenon. According to Kant, things-in-themselves ground the phenomenal representations in our minds. Schopenhauer, on the other hand, believed phenomena and noumena to be two different sides of the same coin; noumena do not cause phenomena, but rather phenomena are simply the way by which our minds perceive the noumena, according to the Principle of Sufficient Reason, which is explained more fully in Schopenhauer's doctoral thesis, On the Fourfold Root of the Principle of Sufficient Reason." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Schopenhauer
Yep. Just don't read his article entitled 'On women'. You may think differently about him if yiou do. Although it is quite amusing in it's exagerrated misogyny. (I don't think he had much luck with the fairer sex!)
Still, his metaphysical works are great! I beleive that with Schopenhauers - and therefore philosophy's - 'The world as will and representation' (and Schopenhauers introduction into the west of Eastern philosophy and mysticism), and with sciences discovery of quantum physics, the western intellect came full circle. Unfortunately we have been floundering on the edge of the vista's opened up by this knowledge, albeit our submersion, especially during the 60's, into all things esoterical, occult, and mystical.
Yep. Just don't read his article entitled 'On women'. You may think differently about him if yiou do. Although it is quite amusing in it's exagerrated misogyny. (I don't think he had much luck with the fairer sex!)
Oh, exaggerated misogyny! Sounds interesting!
I'm pretty good about not throwing out the baby with the bathwater. I have an awful memory for retention of this stuff, and therefore don't often read up on these guys. When I do, I see where I resonate and where there are differences. It makes sense that there are differences between everyone, and ultimately, what leaps out at me are the similarities across the board.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Still, his metaphysical works are great! I beleive that with Schopenhauers - and therefore philosophy's - 'The world as will and representation' (and Schopenhauers introduction into the west of Eastern philosophy and mysticism), and with sciences discovery of quantum physics, the western intellect came full circle. Unfortunately we have been floundering on the edge of the vista's opened up by this knowledge, albeit our submersion, especially during the 60's, into all things esoterical, occult, and mystical.
I completely agree, if I am understanding what you are saying.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Yea, just as spiritual as smoking Salvia or consuming LSD.
During traumatic periods a person's mind disconnects from reality and quite often goes into a dream-like state. These visions can be quite lucid. This can also happen if a person is clinically ill, such is the case with Schizophrenia and Dementia.
When a person is training to be a fighter pilot. They are placed into a centrifuge for flight training. Some times at high G's the blood is drained from their brain and their minds go into a psychotic state. They come back to awareness of reality when the blood returns to their brain.
There are multiple causes of those kinds of visions.
but you say they return to a normal state. how come when her "episode" was over, she had completely changed and her former behaviors (OCD, etc) were never seen again? that sounds like a dramatic re-wiring of the brain, not an episode followed by a return to her normal state. do you have any clue how this would have happened?
furthermore, who's to say lsd cannot be the catalyst for a significant spiritual experience?
The piece it seems that Ahnimus is unable to process is that my subjective experience is the subjective experience of the healing of numerous very serious disorders. The subjective experience corresponds to the objective. They are two sides of the same coin. It is not about one or the other.
And for the record, spiritual experiences are not necessary for the healing of mental illness--the actual work I did was very mundane, very practical and down to earth. It is covered throughout psychology. All one needs to do is believe healing is possible, and to follow one's nose and to trust one's instincts, trying what seems plausible, and learning by trial and error.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
The piece it seems that Ahnimus is unable to process is that my subjective experience is the subjective experience of the healing of numerous very serious disorders. The subjective experience corresponds to the objective. They are two sides of the same coin. It is not about one or the other.
And for the record, spiritual experiences are not necessary for the healing of mental illness--the actual work I did was very mundane, very practical and down to earth. It is covered throughout psychology. All one needs to do is believe healing is possible, and to follow one's nose and to trust one's instincts, trying what seems plausible, and learning by trial and error.
yeah, ive been through some of it myself. im only curious as to what he thinks is the explanation making more sense than spiritual experience or whatever. his description of how it works made it seem like magic.
yeah, ive been through some of it myself. im only curious as to what he thinks is the explanation making more sense than spiritual experience or whatever. his description of how it works made it seem like magic.
Yeah, magic....now it would be just plain old silly to think that I healed because of magic. To see it as that I was majorly inspired and that I used some good old fashioned positive thinking to uncover healing constitutes a much more reasonable, realistic way of looking at it.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Yeah, magic....now it would be just plain old silly to think that I healed because of magic. To see it as that I was majorly inspired and that I used some good old fashioned positive thinking to uncover healing constitutes a much more reasonable, realistic way of looking at it.
Yes, I'm not saying it's magic, I'm just saying you can not have an impossible experience. I believe you "cured" yourself through your "spiritual" experiences. But I also believe they were delusions.
Anyway, I'm done caring if you believe me. Go on superwoman, preach your bullshit and try to convert others. What the hell, I'll remain the only sane person alive and try to figure out what to do with all these vegetables.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Go on superwoman, preach your bullshit and try to convert others. What the hell, I'll remain the only sane person alive and try to figure out what to do with all these vegetables.
Interesting....
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Yes, I'm not saying it's magic, I'm just saying you can not have an impossible experience. I believe you "cured" yourself through your "spiritual" experiences. But I also believe they were delusions.
Anyway, I'm done caring if you believe me. Go on superwoman, preach your bullshit and try to convert others. What the hell, I'll remain the only sane person alive and try to figure out what to do with all these vegetables.
vegetables dont have free will.
oh, and great job on trying to pass on my questions. you clearly have no idea how angelica managed to turn her life around, nor any clue how i did the same. you just like to pretend you know that the reason we have for it is wrong, despite the fact that you offer no alternative explanation that is more sensible or provable. thanks for playing.
Go on superwoman, preach your bullshit and try to convert others. What the hell, I'll remain the only sane person alive and try to figure out what to do with all these vegetables.
oh, and great job on trying to pass on my questions. you clearly have no idea how angelica managed to turn her life around, nor any clue how i did the same. you just like to pretend you know that the reason we have for it is wrong, despite the fact that you offer no alternative explanation that is more sensible or provable. thanks for playing.
I know you continue to be an asshole to those that don't share your view. So I can infer that whatever spirituality you have must make you an asshole. Or is that your own free-will?
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
I know you continue to be an asshole to those that don't share your view. So I can infer that whatever spirituality you have must make you an asshole. Or is that your own free-will?
i answered that in the other thread. my own free will. you're also the only person im an asshole to. based on your theory that we're all just reactive robots, wouldnt that mean im not an asshole, you just act like a dick and bring it out in people? the fact that as you point out everyone seems to gang up on you all the time might lend some credence to the theory that your behavior is what invites the reaction you get, not us.
and still... you have no reply to my question. im shocked truly.
i answered that in the other thread. my own free will. you're also the only person im an asshole to. based on your theory that we're all just reactive robots, wouldnt that mean im not an asshole, you just act like a dick and bring it out in people? the fact that as you point out everyone seems to gang up on you all the time might lend some credence to the theory that your behavior is what invites the reaction you get, not us.
and still... you have no reply to my question. im shocked truly.
So now I'm responsible for your actions when it serves you? You are a piece of work Soulsinging. Didn't you say your are studying law? How is that going for you? Can you wrap your head around that? I am surprised.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Yeah, magic....now it would be just plain old silly to think that I healed because of magic. To see it as that I was majorly inspired and that I used some good old fashioned positive thinking to uncover healing constitutes a much more reasonable, realistic way of looking at it.
'When you go to a doctor, s/he prescribes a medication for you to take, or a treatment you will undergo, your body starts the healing process before the medicine is in your system or the exercise or surgical procedure has taken place. For most people, just seeing a doctor gives confidence that healing will occur. Depending on the patient’s cultural background, this is true whether the physician is a neurosurgeon at the Mayo Clinic or a tribal witch doctor. This is attributable to an extraordinary healing ability of the body by a process known as the placebo effect. What happens is that healing starts when you believe it will occur. Your mind buys into it and your body makes it happen. The great physician and humanitarian, Dr. Albert Schweitzer, gives us this insight - "The witch doctor succeeds for the same reason all the rest of us (medical doctors) succeed. Each patient carries his own doctor inside himself. They come to us not knowing that truth. We are at our best when we give the doctor who resides within each patient a chance to go to work."
Our body is a fantastic chemical factory that is capable of seemingly unbelievable things. For instance, there is the case of a 95-pound woman lifting up a two-ton car to save the life of her child who was trapped under its weight. This was due to a gigantic adrenaline release. As impressive a display of adaptability to a need this is, our body is capable of doing even more seemingly miraculous feats. Perhaps the most impressive of all is its’ ability to heal itself - of anything!
'This 2000-year-old statement is in perfect accord with the most cutting edge scientific and medical understanding of the 21st century. To quote Dr. Herbert Benson of the Harvard Medical School, "We know that belief can lead to healing or at least improvement in 50 percent to 90 percent of diseases, including asthma, angina pectoris, and skin rashes, many forms of pain, rheumatoid arthritis, congestive heart failure. They're all influenced by belief. We in medicine have made fun of belief by calling it the "placebo effect," or insisting that "It's all in your head." Yet, belief is one of the most powerful healing tools we have in our therapeutic arsenal."
Comments
According to Hume they are. Kant took it a step further and introduced our cognitive make-up into the equation. He also posited the 'neumena', or that which shall be forever unknown to us. That which lies beyond the range of our perception. Schopenhauer then took Kants ideas and sprinkled some eastern mysticism and philosophy onto them. I believe that Schopenhauer finally nailed it.
Obviously you don't like that I've had my experiences, or that I talk about them. The fact of the matter is, the only reason I put myself into any talk of "levels of consciousness", is because you like to say it is psychosis that causes me to talk like this. Therefore I am willing and able to assert otherwise, and to back up my own assertion with the works of those who study stages of consciousness.
You are the one who is claiming you are not enlightened. I am merely validating your experience. When you are able to talk about seeing the light and being attuned spiritually and when you display understanding of it, I will validate that understanding, too.
The only reason I ever talk about this is because I am 100% certain anyone can achieve attunement with their own potential. I know undoubtedly that any one individual is stunningly amazing beyond belief. And that each person is the center unto their own universe. If you think I am looking down on you, that is a product of your own imagination.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Likewise, I believe and have support in my assertion that your experiences were not real, that their is no higher self and realization of causality is enlightenment. When you are able to talk about determinism I will validate it for you.
Additionally, I have the support of many scientists that study consciousness.
Dr. Susan Blackmore, Psychologist, Physiologist and Parapsychologist being one of them.
Assert away. What I hear is that you don't believe me so you are showing me your own personal belief. A belief is different than a "knowing". Think about it, if you claim there is no higher self, what you are saying is that "to your knowledge" there is no higher self. I don't dispute your knowledge. It is what it is. At the same time, I also have my own knowledge.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
And there is much in this world and in human consciousness that is beyond the grasp of science. Rationalism, and it's extension in science, does not define the limits of consciousness. Human awreness and perception cannot be narrowed down to mere rationalism.
Many books and articles on consciousness have appeared in the last few years, and one might think that we are making progress. But on a closer look, most of this work leaves the hardest problems about consciousness untouched. Often, this work addresses what might be called the "easy" problems of consciousness: How does the brain process environmental stimulation? How does it integrate information? How do we produce reports on internal states? These are important questions, but to answer them is not to solve the hard problem: why is all this processing accompanied by an experienced inner life? Sometimes this question is ignored entirely; sometimes it is put off until another day; and sometimes, it is simply declared answered. But in each case, one is left with the feeling that the central problem remains as puzzling as ever. ...
Physics and cognitive science do an excellent job within their own domains, and I have not tried to undermine them. For example, I have not disputed that the physical world is causally closed or that behavior can be explained in physical terms; but if a physicist or a cognitive scientist suggests that consciousness can be explained in physical terms, this is merely a hope ungrounded in current theory, and the question remains open."
http://consc.net/book/intro.html
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Do you think that it's possible for an entire people to delude itself so completely for 5 or 8 thousand years? I'm not talking about a religious engagement that resembles anything like that which we ascribe to Christians, or Catholics. I'm refering to a religious belief and involvement which imbued and influenced every facet of everyday life. A living, physical, and immediate religious life. I don't think that people could delude themselves that fully and for that long. I therefore believe that we have a lot to learn from these cultures and from those tribal societies that still exist in the world today.
Cool stuff: "For Schopenhauer, human will had ontological primacy over the intellect; in other words, desire is understood to be prior to thought, and, in a parallel sense, Will is said to be prior to being. In attempt to solve or alleviate the fundamental problems of life, Schopenhauer was rare among philosophers in considering philosophy and logic less important (or less effective) than art, certain types of charitable practice ("loving kindness", in his terms), and certain forms of religious discipline; Schopenhauer concluded that discursive thought (such as philosophy and logic) could neither touch nor transcend the nature of desire—i.e., Will. In The World as Will and Representation, Schopenhauer posited that humans living in the realm of objects are living in the realm of desire, and thus are eternally tormented by that desire (his idea of the role of desire in life is similar to that of Vedanta Hinduism and Buddhism, and Schopenhauer draws attention to these similarities himself). ...
Schopenhauer's identification of the Kantian noumenon (i.e., the actually existing entity) with what he termed Will deserves some explanation. The noumenon was what Kant called the Ding an Sich, the "Thing in Itself", the reality that is the foundation of our sensory and mental representations of an external world; in Kantian terms, those sensory and mental representations are mere phenomena. Schopenhauer departed from Kant in his description of the relationship between the phenomenon and the noumenon. According to Kant, things-in-themselves ground the phenomenal representations in our minds. Schopenhauer, on the other hand, believed phenomena and noumena to be two different sides of the same coin; noumena do not cause phenomena, but rather phenomena are simply the way by which our minds perceive the noumena, according to the Principle of Sufficient Reason, which is explained more fully in Schopenhauer's doctoral thesis, On the Fourfold Root of the Principle of Sufficient Reason." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Schopenhauer
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Yep. Just don't read his article entitled 'On women'. You may think differently about him if yiou do. Although it is quite amusing in it's exagerrated misogyny. (I don't think he had much luck with the fairer sex!)
Edit: Oh, o.k then...here you are..
http://www.theabsolute.net/misogyny/onwomen.html
Still, his metaphysical works are great! I beleive that with Schopenhauers - and therefore philosophy's - 'The world as will and representation' (and Schopenhauers introduction into the west of Eastern philosophy and mysticism), and with sciences discovery of quantum physics, the western intellect came full circle. Unfortunately we have been floundering on the edge of the vista's opened up by this knowledge, albeit our submersion, especially during the 60's, into all things esoterical, occult, and mystical.
I'm pretty good about not throwing out the baby with the bathwater. I have an awful memory for retention of this stuff, and therefore don't often read up on these guys. When I do, I see where I resonate and where there are differences. It makes sense that there are differences between everyone, and ultimately, what leaps out at me are the similarities across the board.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
but you say they return to a normal state. how come when her "episode" was over, she had completely changed and her former behaviors (OCD, etc) were never seen again? that sounds like a dramatic re-wiring of the brain, not an episode followed by a return to her normal state. do you have any clue how this would have happened?
furthermore, who's to say lsd cannot be the catalyst for a significant spiritual experience?
And for the record, spiritual experiences are not necessary for the healing of mental illness--the actual work I did was very mundane, very practical and down to earth. It is covered throughout psychology. All one needs to do is believe healing is possible, and to follow one's nose and to trust one's instincts, trying what seems plausible, and learning by trial and error.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
yeah, ive been through some of it myself. im only curious as to what he thinks is the explanation making more sense than spiritual experience or whatever. his description of how it works made it seem like magic.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Yes, I'm not saying it's magic, I'm just saying you can not have an impossible experience. I believe you "cured" yourself through your "spiritual" experiences. But I also believe they were delusions.
Anyway, I'm done caring if you believe me. Go on superwoman, preach your bullshit and try to convert others. What the hell, I'll remain the only sane person alive and try to figure out what to do with all these vegetables.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
vegetables dont have free will.
oh, and great job on trying to pass on my questions. you clearly have no idea how angelica managed to turn her life around, nor any clue how i did the same. you just like to pretend you know that the reason we have for it is wrong, despite the fact that you offer no alternative explanation that is more sensible or provable. thanks for playing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection
I know you continue to be an asshole to those that don't share your view. So I can infer that whatever spirituality you have must make you an asshole. Or is that your own free-will?
Didn't anyone ever warn you about taking drugs?
i answered that in the other thread. my own free will. you're also the only person im an asshole to. based on your theory that we're all just reactive robots, wouldnt that mean im not an asshole, you just act like a dick and bring it out in people? the fact that as you point out everyone seems to gang up on you all the time might lend some credence to the theory that your behavior is what invites the reaction you get, not us.
and still... you have no reply to my question. im shocked truly.
Well played, though it would have been classier without the "act like a dick" part.
So now I'm responsible for your actions when it serves you? You are a piece of work Soulsinging. Didn't you say your are studying law? How is that going for you? Can you wrap your head around that? I am surprised.
Yes. Thanks for asking.
class is over-rated. im on a message board, not in a court room and he seems to struggle with comprehending subtlety.
'When you go to a doctor, s/he prescribes a medication for you to take, or a treatment you will undergo, your body starts the healing process before the medicine is in your system or the exercise or surgical procedure has taken place. For most people, just seeing a doctor gives confidence that healing will occur. Depending on the patient’s cultural background, this is true whether the physician is a neurosurgeon at the Mayo Clinic or a tribal witch doctor. This is attributable to an extraordinary healing ability of the body by a process known as the placebo effect. What happens is that healing starts when you believe it will occur. Your mind buys into it and your body makes it happen. The great physician and humanitarian, Dr. Albert Schweitzer, gives us this insight - "The witch doctor succeeds for the same reason all the rest of us (medical doctors) succeed. Each patient carries his own doctor inside himself. They come to us not knowing that truth. We are at our best when we give the doctor who resides within each patient a chance to go to work."
Our body is a fantastic chemical factory that is capable of seemingly unbelievable things. For instance, there is the case of a 95-pound woman lifting up a two-ton car to save the life of her child who was trapped under its weight. This was due to a gigantic adrenaline release. As impressive a display of adaptability to a need this is, our body is capable of doing even more seemingly miraculous feats. Perhaps the most impressive of all is its’ ability to heal itself - of anything!
'This 2000-year-old statement is in perfect accord with the most cutting edge scientific and medical understanding of the 21st century. To quote Dr. Herbert Benson of the Harvard Medical School, "We know that belief can lead to healing or at least improvement in 50 percent to 90 percent of diseases, including asthma, angina pectoris, and skin rashes, many forms of pain, rheumatoid arthritis, congestive heart failure. They're all influenced by belief. We in medicine have made fun of belief by calling it the "placebo effect," or insisting that "It's all in your head." Yet, belief is one of the most powerful healing tools we have in our therapeutic arsenal."
http://www.meditationsociety.com/week29.html
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde