8750 posts shown.
Herpes said:Well, Enchantress, we got off to a great start, but Alexander Parker69 just can't handle anyone else taking the spotlight. Just take a look at the previous thread.
😛 😛 😛
I've caught up on everything.
What’s your take on comparing Western versus Eastern spiritual practices? 🙂
Enchantress said:Why don't you two (Herpes and Grizzly) head over to that nonsense thread of yours and keep preaching to each other there? 😁 This space is specifically for comparing Western and Eastern spiritual practices. Do either of you actually have anything constructive to contribute to that discussion?
Well, Enchantress, we were off to a great start, but it looks like Alexander Parker69 just can't handle anyone else having an opinion. Check out the previous page.
😛 😛 😛
Why don't you two (Herpes and Grizzly) take your little nonsense debate over to that other thread and enlighten each other there? 😁 This discussion is actually about comparing Western versus Eastern spiritual practices. Anyone have any real insights on that?
Meditation, prayer—what’s your take?
apop said:So these are the legendary Western techniques for enlightening fireflies! 😂
Pure, unadulterated laziness. Exactly what we're aiming for!
👍 👍 😁
Grizzly said:Turns out, it’s not quite that Zen state after all...
True Nirvana is pure, thoughtless awareness. It doesn't include any of those meditative states where you're still grasping at concepts.
Master Gristi said:Your description of Herpes is a little thin, don't you think?😉
I was strictly talking about the concept of Samadhi. Did I just vindicate myself, the Enlightened Master Gristi!
🙄
Karen Sanchez19 said:Please translate what nirvana is versus what savikalpa means.
According to Alexander Parker69's terminology:
nirvana - that peak state of total lethargy where there is absolutely zero chance of getting an erection
savikalpa - a slightly less intense peak state where you still can't get it up unless someone starts pouring moonshine down your throat
😁 😁 😁 😁
In actual terms:
savikalpa - descriptive
nirvana - indescribable
👋
Alexander Parker69 said:I've only caught a tiny whiff of that stuff once, right when things were at their absolute peak.
Don't kid yourself, Alexander Parker69. That’s nothing more than some cheap, bottom-shelf moonshine masquerading as the real deal. But hey, whatever floats your boat!
😁 😁 😁 😁 😁
Alexander Parker69 said:Blah, blah, blah. Instead of playing philosopher, why don't you actually put in a few hours every day for several months practicing different types of sadhana before you start talking? Being a poser is easy.
Maybe try actually living your life for once, Alexander Parker69! Being lethargic isn't some kind of spiritual peak. Honestly, even the simple life of a hardworking farmer in Iowa is more spiritual than your version of "sadhana." You aren't in samadhi if you're still out here rambling and trying to act like you're so enlightened. Experiencing samadhi is actually pretty straightforward—it’s just not for someone as wrapped up in their own head as you are.
Alexander Parker69 said:Every single meditation session starts with concentration. The more you can direct and master your mind—becoming truly aware of and observing its internal processes—the better your concentration becomes. Real meditation isn't just about zoning out or getting lost in daydreams; it’s actually the byproduct of deep concentration. Think of it as the progression from Dharana to Dhyana to Samadhi... concentration leads to meditation, which leads to "transcendence." Meditation, in its purest sense, isn't a standalone technique. Any technique you use is just a precursor to Dharana (concentration). True meditation is the result—it's the state where the mind reaches one-pointed focus.
Try applying some logic to that mind you love concentrating so much. It should be obvious to you that transcendence is a state of consciousness that moves beyond both the subject and the object, bypassing all the processes between them. How on earth are you supposed to reach a transcendental state if the subject refuses to stop clinging to the object? Wherever there is mental direction, there is an object being focused on. Concentration is essentially pinning your attention to that specific thing. Pure consciousness, however, exists entirely free from the experience of objects.
You’ve got a point there, Eric Wells3... 😢
I’m also really interested in diving deep into everything related to neo-pragmatism—specifically the work of Quine, Richard Rorty, and Donald Davidson—as well as the broader field of pragmatism in general.
One thing I’m still really struggling to wrap my head around when it comes to Quine is this:
Eliminative materialism. It’s a heavy concept, but essentially, it's the idea that our common-sense understanding of the mind—things like beliefs, desires, and intentions—doesn't actually exist. Instead, these aren't just "wrong"; they are completely misplaced concepts that will eventually be replaced by pure neuroscience. Think of it like how we used to talk about "phlogiston" to explain fire, only to realize later that it was all just oxygen and chemical reactions. Eliminativists argue that once we fully map the brain, terms like "belief" will become obsolete, much like how we stopped talking about "caloric fluid" once we understood thermodynamics.
2. Scientism.
Language collision.
Behaviorism.
The rigid dogmatism inherent in logical empiricism.
So, here are the core questions driving his philosophy.
It would be great if you could walk me through a "simple" and logical example of Quine's doctrine of the "indeterminacy of translation." There’s one specific instance that I just can't wrap my head around: the idea that the term "rabbit" might carry vastly different meanings, or could potentially refer to a whole variety of different "rabbits." In what context is this actually being argued? I am genuinely stumped.
Regarding eliminativism—I know Quine connects it to the concept of the indeterminacy of translation, but I’m honestly struggling to wrap my head around what that term actually means.
Quine argues that every term essentially exists in two different states: the intended and the expressed. To help clear things up, let me break down what those actually mean with a quick example. Think about the word "bank." When you have an **intended** meaning, you have a specific concept in your head. You might be thinking of a financial institution like Chase or Wells Fargo. That’s the mental target you're aiming for when you speak. However, once you actually say the word out loud—the **expressed** part—you run into the messy reality of language. If you tell someone, "I'm going to the bank," they might think you're heading to an ATM, or they might think you're going to sit by the edge of the Mississippi River. Even though your *intent* was strictly about money, the *expression* itself is ambiguous and open to interpretation. In short: intention is what you mean; expression is what actually comes out of your mouth and how the world receives it.
What exactly is reductionism?
Think of it this way: an analytical truth is true simply because of what the words actually mean, regardless of anything else happening in the world. For example, if I say, "All bachelors are unmarried," I don't need to go out and conduct a survey or check anyone's marriage license to know I'm right. The definition of the word itself provides the answer. On the other hand, a synthetic truth is something that depends entirely on actual facts and observation. If I say, "The guy living next door is a bachelor," I can't just rely on the dictionary to prove it. I actually have to look at him, check his status, or observe his lifestyle to see if the statement holds up against reality. One is true by definition; the other requires real-world evidence.
Pragmatism has always been fundamentally anti-positivist.
What does "anti-positivist" actually mean?
Anti-essentialism, anti-realism, and detranscendentalization—these are all core pillars of post-structuralist thought. Since you're new to these concepts, let me break them down for you in plain English. Here’s a quick primer on what they actually mean: **Anti-essentialism** This is the idea that things don't have an unchanging, "built-in" essence that defines what they are. In traditional philosophy, people often assumed that objects, identities, or even social categories had a fixed nature. Anti-essentialists argue that these identities aren't set in stone; instead, they are constructed through language, culture, and social processes. Basically, there is no "true self" or "fixed nature" waiting to be discovered; identity is something that is constantly being shaped by the world around us. **Anti-realism** In a nutshell, anti-realism challenges the notion that there is a single, objective reality that exists independently of our minds or our language. While a "realist" believes that the world has a definite structure that we simply observe, an anti-realist argues that our understanding of "reality" is always filtered through our perceptions, social frameworks, and linguistic structures. We can't step outside of our own perspectives to see the world exactly as it is, so "reality" becomes something we interpret rather than something we just find. **Detranscendentalization** This one sounds intimidating, but think of it this way: it’s the rejection of any "transcendental" authority or foundation. Historically, philosophers looked for a "God's eye view"—a supreme truth, a universal logic, or a divine source—that could ground all knowledge and give it absolute certainty. Detranscendentalization is the move away from those "top-down" certainties. It suggests that there is no ultimate, external anchor for truth; everything is grounded in local, human-made systems of meaning rather than some higher, universal principle.
THANKS A TON!
Amanda Evans29, please, try to stay on track and stop derailing the conversation.
Maybe try taking some Ginkgo Biloba. I’ve heard everyone from my grandma to my younger cousins swear by it.
Give it a shot—you’ve got nothing to lose. 😉
In today's world, marijuana is treated much like a standard pack of cigarettes. It’s already legal in several states, and alcohol is widely available too, so why shouldn't weed be legalized across the board?
If someone is going to use it anyway, it's better if it's legal. That way, they aren't buying it under the table from shady sources where you have no idea what kind of nasty stuff is being mixed into it.
How can you even tell if the marijuana is pure, or if there's something else laced in there?
It really needs to be legalized.
Whether something is considered a "hard" or "soft" drug—that should be up to the experts to decide, or they should determine if it even qualifies as a drug at all.
Damn, most people here are just posers. 😁
The Number 1 single was :
Donna Summer - "I Feel Love"
The Number 1 album was :
Johnny Mathis - "The Johnny Mathis Collection"
🙂
Mickey Mouse said:Look, it’s not just some random thing—there’s actually a built-in barrier between our conscious and subconscious minds (and honestly, there’s a good reason for that!). Under certain circumstances, you can either tighten that seal or loosen it up. All those deep spiritual practices tend to weaken that barrier significantly.
So, where does prayer fit into all this?
You're a genius 🙂
By definition, what actually constitutes a liberal?
What’s the actual connection between pragmatism and utilitarianism? And does utilitarianism have any meaningful ties to neopragmatism?
THANKS!