Philosophy of books vs. books about philosophy

bluemason3 said:I’m not convinced calling it a "particle" in an elementary particle is actually the right way to go about it. It feels like we’re just trying to visualize things based on our everyday experiences—treating them like tiny little pieces of matter simply because they're too small for us to see, even though they aren't necessarily "bits" of stuff at all.

It’s similar to how I feel pop science turns different modeling methods into these "objective realities" when they’re explaining things to laypeople. For instance, they present a phenomenon as being both a wave and a particle, whereas I’d argue we’re just applying the concepts of a wave or a particle depending on which model we use. The phenomenon itself isn't physically morphing from one thing to another.(I have a feeling someone mentioned "dualism" earlier, but I can't be bothered to scroll back and check).

These are heavy topics for the natural sciences. Honestly, I doubt many people here have enough background knowledge to avoid getting a pretty warped perspective from those questionable "mystical physics" authors out there.

Here is what Capra has to say about it:

These subatomic building blocks of matter are incredibly abstract entities defined by their wave-particle duality. Depending entirely on how we choose to observe them, they manifest either as discrete particles or as continuous waves. Light follows this same peculiar logic, shifting its form between electromagnetic waves and individual particles based on the context of the observation.

The dual nature of matter and light is frankly unsettling. It feels almost impossible to wrap one's head around the idea that something can simultaneously function as a particle—a discrete entity confined to a tiny point in space—and a wave, which spreads out across a vast expanse. Yet, this is the reality physicists were forced to embrace. For a long time, the situation felt like an unsolvable paradox, until we realized that our very definitions of "particle" and "wave" are rooted in classical concepts that simply aren't equipped to describe atomic phenomena. An electron isn't strictly a particle, nor is it strictly a wave; rather, it manifests as one or the other depending on the circumstances. When it acts as a particle, it can transition into its wave-like state at the expense of its particulate nature, and vice versa. It exists in this constant flux, oscillating between being a particle and being a wave. This implies something quite profound: neither an electron nor any other subatomic entity possesses inherent properties that exist independently of its environment. Everything is defined by its surroundings.

End of quote.

To get the full picture, you’d really need to sit down with Capra’s entire book—or at least dive into the specific sections covering physics.

Sam Martinez9 said:To my mind, that sounds more like a metaphor, yet such a comparison doesn't actually distort reality. Elementary particles truly do move in a manner akin to a dance, and they exhibit this same motion throughout the entire observable universe. Therefore, calling this movement a 'cosmic dance' remains a perfectly accurate description.

For me, true mysticism would involve him claiming that Shiva herself actually triggered that dance, or that she is choreographing the steps, or something along those lines.

I haven't read Tao physics, so it’s entirely possible that it bridges the gap between mysticism and physics. I am currently reading I Ching and Hidden Connections. Both were written after Tao physics and serve as a sort of expansion upon it. They follow a similar structure—starting with physics, moving into biology, and eventually addressing society, all interconnected. To be precise, biology emerges from physics, and society (or economics) emerges from both biology and physics. I haven't finished them yet, but I don't see much mysticism here, even if there are passing mentions of Budo, Buddhism, or Eastern philosophy.

It seems you've formed your entire opinion of Capra based on just one of his books, which I don't think is particularly wise.

While Capar does critique mechanism and the Cartesian-Newtonian worldview, that doesn't make him a mystic. In fact, he isn't even unique in making that critique; many others do the same.

For him, the natural sciences—physics and biology—are the foundation. When he discusses Eastern philosophy, he integrates it into the framework of physics and biology rather than twisting science to fit mysticism.

He even admits that his ideas and theories aren't entirely unique and can be found in the work of other scientists and philosophers, though I personally found them quite refreshing.

Take Life, for instance: when discussing how it emerges and its fundamental prerequisites, many would argue that a living organism is defined by having DNA. However, dead organisms possess DNA as well...

Look, we can call things whatever we want and compare them to anything we feel like. Even Capra does it. It’s really not up for debate.

Sam Martinez9 said:To my mind, that sounds more like a metaphor, yet such a comparison doesn't actually distort reality. Elementary particles truly do move in a manner akin to a dance, and they exhibit this same motion throughout the entire observable universe. Therefore, calling this movement a 'cosmic dance' remains a perfectly accurate description.

For me, true mysticism would involve him claiming that Shiva herself actually triggered that dance, or that she is choreographing the steps, or something along those lines.

I haven't read Tao physics, so it’s entirely possible that it bridges the gap between mysticism and physics. I am currently reading I Ching and Hidden Connections. Both were written after Tao physics and serve as a sort of expansion upon it. They follow a similar structure—starting with physics, moving into biology, and eventually addressing society, all interconnected. To be precise, biology emerges from physics, and society (or economics) emerges from both biology and physics. I haven't finished them yet, but I don't see much mysticism here, even if there are passing mentions of Budo, Buddhism, or Eastern philosophy.

It seems you've formed your entire opinion of Capra based on just one of his books, which I don't think is particularly wise.

While Capar does critique mechanism and the Cartesian-Newtonian worldview, that doesn't make him a mystic. In fact, he isn't even unique in making that critique; many others do the same.

For him, the natural sciences—physics and biology—are the foundation. When he discusses Eastern philosophy, he integrates it into the framework of physics and biology rather than twisting science to fit mysticism.

He even admits that his ideas and theories aren't entirely unique and can be found in the work of other scientists and philosophers, though I personally found them quite refreshing.

Take Life, for instance: when discussing how it emerges and its fundamental prerequisites, many would argue that a living organism is defined by having DNA. However, dead organisms possess DNA as well...

That's just not true. I've got his Web of Life right here, plus there are plenty of different sources out there today if you actually bother to look for information on someone or something. To be honest, I don't even have a set-in-stone opinion on Capra, so he isn't exactly going to influence my view with some perfectly polished writing. My main point is that his ideas and ways of thinking often step way outside the lines of typical scientific thought. At the end of the day, it's not some rigid rulebook he's pushing; it's just a description of how things are, and Capra himself backs it up.

Sam Martinez9 said:To my mind, that sounds more like a metaphor, yet such a comparison doesn't actually distort reality. Elementary particles truly do move in a manner akin to a dance, and they exhibit this same motion throughout the entire observable universe. Therefore, calling this movement a 'cosmic dance' remains a perfectly accurate description.

For me, true mysticism would involve him claiming that Shiva herself actually triggered that dance, or that she is choreographing the steps, or something along those lines.

I haven't read Tao physics, so it’s entirely possible that it bridges the gap between mysticism and physics. I am currently reading I Ching and Hidden Connections. Both were written after Tao physics and serve as a sort of expansion upon it. They follow a similar structure—starting with physics, moving into biology, and eventually addressing society, all interconnected. To be precise, biology emerges from physics, and society (or economics) emerges from both biology and physics. I haven't finished them yet, but I don't see much mysticism here, even if there are passing mentions of Budo, Buddhism, or Eastern philosophy.

It seems you've formed your entire opinion of Capra based on just one of his books, which I don't think is particularly wise.

While Capar does critique mechanism and the Cartesian-Newtonian worldview, that doesn't make him a mystic. In fact, he isn't even unique in making that critique; many others do the same.

For him, the natural sciences—physics and biology—are the foundation. When he discusses Eastern philosophy, he integrates it into the framework of physics and biology rather than twisting science to fit mysticism.

He even admits that his ideas and theories aren't entirely unique and can be found in the work of other scientists and philosophers, though I personally found them quite refreshing.

Take Life, for instance: when discussing how it emerges and its fundamental prerequisites, many would argue that a living organism is defined by having DNA. However, dead organisms possess DNA as well...

I wasn't even sure if he was a true mystic or just someone who got way too carried away with the whole spiritual thing. He definitely had a habit of drifting far beyond the bounds of actual science with his theories. It was wild to watch.

Sam Martinez9 said:To my mind, that sounds more like a metaphor, yet such a comparison doesn't actually distort reality. Elementary particles truly do move in a manner akin to a dance, and they exhibit this same motion throughout the entire observable universe. Therefore, calling this movement a 'cosmic dance' remains a perfectly accurate description.

For me, true mysticism would involve him claiming that Shiva herself actually triggered that dance, or that she is choreographing the steps, or something along those lines.

I haven't read Tao physics, so it’s entirely possible that it bridges the gap between mysticism and physics. I am currently reading I Ching and Hidden Connections. Both were written after Tao physics and serve as a sort of expansion upon it. They follow a similar structure—starting with physics, moving into biology, and eventually addressing society, all interconnected. To be precise, biology emerges from physics, and society (or economics) emerges from both biology and physics. I haven't finished them yet, but I don't see much mysticism here, even if there are passing mentions of Budo, Buddhism, or Eastern philosophy.

It seems you've formed your entire opinion of Capra based on just one of his books, which I don't think is particularly wise.

While Capar does critique mechanism and the Cartesian-Newtonian worldview, that doesn't make him a mystic. In fact, he isn't even unique in making that critique; many others do the same.

For him, the natural sciences—physics and biology—are the foundation. When he discusses Eastern philosophy, he integrates it into the framework of physics and biology rather than twisting science to fit mysticism.

He even admits that his ideas and theories aren't entirely unique and can be found in the work of other scientists and philosophers, though I personally found them quite refreshing.

Take Life, for instance: when discussing how it emerges and its fundamental prerequisites, many would argue that a living organism is defined by having DNA. However, dead organisms possess DNA as well...

Awesome. I really think Capra has some killer ideas and great insights to share.

Sam Martinez9 said:To my mind, that sounds more like a metaphor, yet such a comparison doesn't actually distort reality. Elementary particles truly do move in a manner akin to a dance, and they exhibit this same motion throughout the entire observable universe. Therefore, calling this movement a 'cosmic dance' remains a perfectly accurate description.

For me, true mysticism would involve him claiming that Shiva herself actually triggered that dance, or that she is choreographing the steps, or something along those lines.

I haven't read Tao physics, so it’s entirely possible that it bridges the gap between mysticism and physics. I am currently reading I Ching and Hidden Connections. Both were written after Tao physics and serve as a sort of expansion upon it. They follow a similar structure—starting with physics, moving into biology, and eventually addressing society, all interconnected. To be precise, biology emerges from physics, and society (or economics) emerges from both biology and physics. I haven't finished them yet, but I don't see much mysticism here, even if there are passing mentions of Budo, Buddhism, or Eastern philosophy.

It seems you've formed your entire opinion of Capra based on just one of his books, which I don't think is particularly wise.

While Capar does critique mechanism and the Cartesian-Newtonian worldview, that doesn't make him a mystic. In fact, he isn't even unique in making that critique; many others do the same.

For him, the natural sciences—physics and biology—are the foundation. When he discusses Eastern philosophy, he integrates it into the framework of physics and biology rather than twisting science to fit mysticism.

He even admits that his ideas and theories aren't entirely unique and can be found in the work of other scientists and philosophers, though I personally found them quite refreshing.

Take Life, for instance: when discussing how it emerges and its fundamental prerequisites, many would argue that a living organism is defined by having DNA. However, dead organisms possess DNA as well...

I'm a bit lost here. When you say 'dead organisms have DNA,' are you talking about inanimate objects or actual biological remains?

Gerald Jackson48 said:Look, we can call things whatever we want and compare them to anything we feel like. Even Capra does it. It’s really not up for debate.

That's just not true. I've got his Web of Life right here, plus there are plenty of different sources out there today if you actually bother to look for information on someone or something. To be honest, I don't even have a set-in-stone opinion on Capra, so he isn't exactly going to influence my view with some perfectly polished writing. My main point is that his ideas and ways of thinking often step way outside the lines of typical scientific thought. At the end of the day, it's not some rigid rulebook he's pushing; it's just a description of how things are, and Capra himself backs it up.

I wasn't even sure if he was a true mystic or just someone who got way too carried away with the whole spiritual thing. He definitely had a habit of drifting far beyond the bounds of actual science with his theories. It was wild to watch.

Awesome. I really think Capra has some killer ideas and great insights to share.

I'm a bit lost here. When you say 'dead organisms have DNA,' are you talking about inanimate objects or actual biological remains?

Inanimate objects aren't organisms.🙄

Gerald Jackson48 said:Look, we can call things whatever we want and compare them to anything we feel like. Even Capra does it. It’s really not up for debate.

That's just not true. I've got his Web of Life right here, plus there are plenty of different sources out there today if you actually bother to look for information on someone or something. To be honest, I don't even have a set-in-stone opinion on Capra, so he isn't exactly going to influence my view with some perfectly polished writing. My main point is that his ideas and ways of thinking often step way outside the lines of typical scientific thought. At the end of the day, it's not some rigid rulebook he's pushing; it's just a description of how things are, and Capra himself backs it up.

I wasn't even sure if he was a true mystic or just someone who got way too carried away with the whole spiritual thing. He definitely had a habit of drifting far beyond the bounds of actual science with his theories. It was wild to watch.

Awesome. I really think Capra has some killer ideas and great insights to share.

I'm a bit lost here. When you say 'dead organisms have DNA,' are you talking about inanimate objects or actual biological remains?

Once again, you haven't provided any specifics for us to actually debate. You just keep circling back to the same vague points: there’s information out there about him, I claim his views deviate from standard scientific reasoning, he gets too caught up in mysticism, he crosses the line of science...

But you aren't giving me anything concrete to work with. Where is the evidence of this "mysticism"? Where are the specific quotes where he oversteps scientific bounds? What exactly are these views that supposedly fall outside the norm? Without substance, we don't really have a conversation to be having.

Gerald Jackson48 said:Look, we can call things whatever we want and compare them to anything we feel like. Even Capra does it. It’s really not up for debate.

That's just not true. I've got his Web of Life right here, plus there are plenty of different sources out there today if you actually bother to look for information on someone or something. To be honest, I don't even have a set-in-stone opinion on Capra, so he isn't exactly going to influence my view with some perfectly polished writing. My main point is that his ideas and ways of thinking often step way outside the lines of typical scientific thought. At the end of the day, it's not some rigid rulebook he's pushing; it's just a description of how things are, and Capra himself backs it up.

I wasn't even sure if he was a true mystic or just someone who got way too carried away with the whole spiritual thing. He definitely had a habit of drifting far beyond the bounds of actual science with his theories. It was wild to watch.

Awesome. I really think Capra has some killer ideas and great insights to share.

I'm a bit lost here. When you say 'dead organisms have DNA,' are you talking about inanimate objects or actual biological remains?

A dead bacterium or a dead cell still possesses DNA. They didn't die because they lost their DNA; the genetic material remains within them even after death.

bluemason3 said:I’m not convinced calling it a "particle" in an elementary particle is actually the right way to go about it. It feels like we’re just trying to visualize things based on our everyday experiences—treating them like tiny little pieces of matter simply because they're too small for us to see, even though they aren't necessarily "bits" of stuff at all.

It’s similar to how I feel pop science turns different modeling methods into these "objective realities" when they’re explaining things to laypeople. For instance, they present a phenomenon as being both a wave and a particle, whereas I’d argue we’re just applying the concepts of a wave or a particle depending on which model we use. The phenomenon itself isn't physically morphing from one thing to another.(I have a feeling someone mentioned "dualism" earlier, but I can't be bothered to scroll back and check).

These are heavy topics for the natural sciences. Honestly, I doubt many people here have enough background knowledge to avoid getting a pretty warped perspective from those questionable "mystical physics" authors out there.

It’s true that as our collective knowledge expands and we redefine how things work, language should probably keep pace. But honestly, language tends to get stuck in the past. Sometimes it's just practical—changing everything is a massive headache. Other times, it's more about ideology. If we changed every term the second a new theory dropped, people would be totally lost. Sure, old names might not perfectly capture a new scientific paradigm or the latest way we understand the world, and they can definitely lead people down the wrong path, but constant updates would just cause total chaos.

A buddy of mine was joking around about this the other day. He thinks there’s going to come a time when we don't say things like, "Honey, this dinner tastes amazing..." Instead, we'll be saying, "Darling, this meal is stimulating my orbito-medial cortex in all the right ways..." 😁

I don't know what to tell you. Sometimes things just happen. You can plan everything out perfectly, follow all the rules, and still end up staring at a mess. It’s just how life works in America. Not every day goes according to the playbook. That's just reality. kaže:
Let's get one thing straight: inanimate objects aren't organisms. It’s just basic science. A rock isn't breathing, and a chair definitely isn't eating lunch. Simple as that. Everything else is just noise. 🙄

I mean, sure, but I have no clue what ant8 is actually getting at here. Honestly, I wouldn't even be surprised if Capra claimed that inanimate objects have their own DNA or something equally wild. It’s like saying particle movement is just a metaphor for some cosmic dance or an eternal song. Just one of those things.

Gerald Jackson48 said:It’s true that as our collective knowledge expands and we redefine how things work, language should probably keep pace. But honestly, language tends to get stuck in the past. Sometimes it's just practical—changing everything is a massive headache. Other times, it's more about ideology. If we changed every term the second a new theory dropped, people would be totally lost. Sure, old names might not perfectly capture a new scientific paradigm or the latest way we understand the world, and they can definitely lead people down the wrong path, but constant updates would just cause total chaos.

A buddy of mine was joking around about this the other day. He thinks there’s going to come a time when we don't say things like, "Honey, this dinner tastes amazing..." Instead, we'll be saying, "Darling, this meal is stimulating my orbito-medial cortex in all the right ways..." 😁

I don't know what to tell you. Sometimes things just happen. You can plan everything out perfectly, follow all the rules, and still end up staring at a mess. It’s just how life works in America. Not every day goes according to the playbook. That's just reality. kaže:
Let's get one thing straight: inanimate objects aren't organisms. It’s just basic science. A rock isn't breathing, and a chair definitely isn't eating lunch. Simple as that. Everything else is just noise. 🙄

I mean, sure, but I have no clue what ant8 is actually getting at here. Honestly, I wouldn't even be surprised if Capra claimed that inanimate objects have their own DNA or something equally wild. It’s like saying particle movement is just a metaphor for some cosmic dance or an eternal song. Just one of those things.

Fair point.

The inevitable friction happens between casual slang and scientific terminology. Then you get this feedback loop where people cite scientific sources, leading to some kind of re-re-semanticization. It becomes a game of telephone where a layperson takes a scientific term—one that migrated from old colloquialism to a new scientific definition (usually becoming more precise in the process)—and tosses it back into their own new version of casual speech. That's how you end up with a whole chain of misunderstandings.

On top of that, schools are still teaching that "planetary model" of the atom... 😬

bluemason3 said:Fair point.

The inevitable friction happens between casual slang and scientific terminology. Then you get this feedback loop where people cite scientific sources, leading to some kind of re-re-semanticization. It becomes a game of telephone where a layperson takes a scientific term—one that migrated from old colloquialism to a new scientific definition (usually becoming more precise in the process)—and tosses it back into their own new version of casual speech. That's how you end up with a whole chain of misunderstandings.

On top of that, schools are still teaching that "planetary model" of the atom... 😬

There's also that whole "atoms as little spheres" analogy floating around. It makes explaining evolution—and the actual scientific consensus on it—really tricky. It’s almost impossible to talk about it without using language that accidentally implies everything has a specific purpose or end goal.

It ends up sounding like "fish have fins so they can swim" or "spiders have legs so they can walk," which isn't quite right.

Plus, you run into the limits of language itself. Our words and sentence structures sometimes just struggle to carry complex ideas. I think philosophers have done some really cool work here. They might not have solved the mystery, but they’ve definitely pointed us toward where the real questions lie.

Gerald Jackson48 said:Look, we can call things whatever we want and compare them to anything we feel like. Even Capra does it. It’s really not up for debate.

That's just not true. I've got his Web of Life right here, plus there are plenty of different sources out there today if you actually bother to look for information on someone or something. To be honest, I don't even have a set-in-stone opinion on Capra, so he isn't exactly going to influence my view with some perfectly polished writing. My main point is that his ideas and ways of thinking often step way outside the lines of typical scientific thought. At the end of the day, it's not some rigid rulebook he's pushing; it's just a description of how things are, and Capra himself backs it up.

I wasn't even sure if he was a true mystic or just someone who got way too carried away with the whole spiritual thing. He definitely had a habit of drifting far beyond the bounds of actual science with his theories. It was wild to watch.

Awesome. I really think Capra has some killer ideas and great insights to share.

I'm a bit lost here. When you say 'dead organisms have DNA,' are you talking about inanimate objects or actual biological remains?

So, if a scientist uses their expertise to push past the established "boundaries" of their field, does that automatically mean they've stepped into mysticism?
What does that actually imply?

Don't those rigid, self-imposed limits set by the scientific community essentially turn it into a dogma?

If science operates within strict confines that cannot be breached, doesn't that make it a closed system?

If we have such a limited, closed system—one whose scope is clearly defined and intentionally excludes searching for answers to essential philosophical questions, instead choosing to trivialize them or reduce everything to mere matter—then what happens to those questions? Are they eventually erased by redefining the scope of the field, or are they simply outsourced to religion and "mysticism," effectively being declared rationally irrelevant?

The boundaries are epistemological, not found within the research data itself.

If you cross those epistemological lines, you’ve effectively stepped out of the realm of science and straight into mysticism.

From an epistemological standpoint regarding methodology—if I’m following this correctly—science relies on a single, solitary method and operates under the assumption that this one approach can encompass all the questions and answers across every meaningful facet of human existence...

By doing this, it essentially dictates what qualifies as a relevant existential question. It effectively cherry-picks only those inquiries to which its specific, self-defining method is capable of providing a valid "scientific" answer, thereby delegitimizing everything else.

Consequently, science assumes the role of a political authority. It boxes itself into narrow confines centered entirely around its own methodology, dismissing any other concerns as irrelevant or simply not serious enough to merit investigation.

It reminds me of that old fable about the fox and the sour grapes... if I recall the details correctly.

Sandra Murphy33 said:So, if a scientist uses their expertise to push past the established "boundaries" of their field, does that automatically mean they've stepped into mysticism?
What does that actually imply?

Don't those rigid, self-imposed limits set by the scientific community essentially turn it into a dogma?

If science operates within strict confines that cannot be breached, doesn't that make it a closed system?

If we have such a limited, closed system—one whose scope is clearly defined and intentionally excludes searching for answers to essential philosophical questions, instead choosing to trivialize them or reduce everything to mere matter—then what happens to those questions? Are they eventually erased by redefining the scope of the field, or are they simply outsourced to religion and "mysticism," effectively being declared rationally irrelevant?

As for Carpa, we don't even know if they've crossed that line into mysticism or not. Some people just claim they have, which is nothing more than a pure ad hominem attack. There isn't any actual evidence—no theories, no quotes, no specific statements—that we could actually examine to determine whether that's true or not.

+1 What Beljki is saying doesn't even have to touch on anything mystical. I’m talking specifically about Capra here, not just every scientist out there. Besides, Capra doesn't shy away from his connection to mysticism. He leans into it. It's all over his books and papers. Honestly, I don't get why anyone on an American forum would even care.

Gerald Jackson48 said:+1 What Beljki is saying doesn't even have to touch on anything mystical. I’m talking specifically about Capra here, not just every scientist out there. Besides, Capra doesn't shy away from his connection to mysticism. He leans into it. It's all over his books and papers. Honestly, I don't get why anyone on an American forum would even care.

I think there's a misunderstanding. My issue isn't with the subject matter itself, but rather the direction this conversation is taking. I'm not particularly interested in debates centered on labels like *he's a mystic* versus *he's not a mystic*.

What I actually want to discuss is the substance of what he wrote, rather than how he perceives himself or how others choose to label him.

Sam Martinez9 said:I think there's a misunderstanding. My issue isn't with the subject matter itself, but rather the direction this conversation is taking. I'm not particularly interested in debates centered on labels like *he's a mystic* versus *he's not a mystic*.

What I actually want to discuss is the substance of what he wrote, rather than how he perceives himself or how others choose to label him.

Look, we aren't here to cater to you or spoon-feed you answers just to make you happy. Besides, I already pointed out two specific ideas he laid out in his book 'Quantum physics.' Here's a better idea: start a fresh thread focusing on one specific thought of his that actually interests you. Maybe then you'll get what you're looking for.

Gerald Jackson48 said:Look, we aren't here to cater to you or spoon-feed you answers just to make you happy. Besides, I already pointed out two specific ideas he laid out in his book 'Quantum physics.' Here's a better idea: start a fresh thread focusing on one specific thought of his that actually interests you. Maybe then you'll get what you're looking for.

Well, no, of course you aren't. Everyone is entitled to pick their own topics and engage in discussions however they see fit.

I won't be starting a dedicated thread for this, as I don't think there's much point. To actually have a meaningful dialogue, one would need to put in the work to read through and study everything that was written—and then some—and frankly, I don't suspect there's much interest in doing that.

That said, I'll make sure to quote him whenever it feels relevant to the existing discussions.

THE FREEDOM OF MODERNITY
(..which also serves as a book recommendation for 😉)

"I’ve earned enough, and I’ve saved enough. I don’t owe anyone a dime. I don't have a job unless I decide to invent one. I don't even have any major obligations hanging over my head. There are people out there who would pay handsomely to be in my shoes right now. I know they would. Of course, I wouldn't trade places with them. But to be free in the morning—to handle those early hours exactly how I see fit, to experience what I call a peaceful morning, just the way I want it—that’s like a dream to some. Or something else entirely. To stay in bed just a little longer, but for exactly as long as I choose—whether that’s ten minutes or half an hour, it doesn't matter—knowing I don't have to be anywhere, that I don't have to rush, that I can put on whatever music I feel like hearing and think about whatever is on my mind. To take care of things in the bathroom whenever the urge strikes, to eat something afterward—nothing heavy, just something I actually want and that suffices, something simple like toast and butter—and to drink my coffee and smoke a few cigarettes without anyone nagging me or waiting for me somewhere. I want to watch the snow fall while I sip coffee that I made exactly to my taste. Since I usually only have that one cup in the morning, maybe once in the afternoon, I want to make it myself and have nobody interfering. I want to smoke a couple of cigarettes with it, too, but not inside; somewhere open yet sheltered, like a porch, where it's just a little chilly, not too much, so I can watch the snow. That’s how I want another day to begin sliding into view, emerging from nothing. After that, let the day wander, let it twist, let it be calm or chaotic; it doesn't matter. Once you've had a morning like that..." (Ta-Nehisi Coates, "The Daily Winter")

Sandra Murphy33 said:THE FREEDOM OF MODERNITY
(..which also serves as a book recommendation for 😉)

"I’ve earned enough, and I’ve saved enough. I don’t owe anyone a dime. I don't have a job unless I decide to invent one. I don't even have any major obligations hanging over my head. There are people out there who would pay handsomely to be in my shoes right now. I know they would. Of course, I wouldn't trade places with them. But to be free in the morning—to handle those early hours exactly how I see fit, to experience what I call a peaceful morning, just the way I want it—that’s like a dream to some. Or something else entirely. To stay in bed just a little longer, but for exactly as long as I choose—whether that’s ten minutes or half an hour, it doesn't matter—knowing I don't have to be anywhere, that I don't have to rush, that I can put on whatever music I feel like hearing and think about whatever is on my mind. To take care of things in the bathroom whenever the urge strikes, to eat something afterward—nothing heavy, just something I actually want and that suffices, something simple like toast and butter—and to drink my coffee and smoke a few cigarettes without anyone nagging me or waiting for me somewhere. I want to watch the snow fall while I sip coffee that I made exactly to my taste. Since I usually only have that one cup in the morning, maybe once in the afternoon, I want to make it myself and have nobody interfering. I want to smoke a couple of cigarettes with it, too, but not inside; somewhere open yet sheltered, like a porch, where it's just a little chilly, not too much, so I can watch the snow. That’s how I want another day to begin sliding into view, emerging from nothing. After that, let the day wander, let it twist, let it be calm or chaotic; it doesn't matter. Once you've had a morning like that..." (Ta-Nehisi Coates, "The Daily Winter")

It’s almost like this guy was looking over my shoulder. Everything feels nearly identical, except I can’t stand the winter, and I don't even want to see snow unless I'm watching it from a heated room. I prefer our first cup of coffee while everyone else is still asleep and the silence is actually perfect.☕

Sandra Murphy33 said:THE FREEDOM OF MODERNITY
(..which also serves as a book recommendation for 😉)

"I’ve earned enough, and I’ve saved enough. I don’t owe anyone a dime. I don't have a job unless I decide to invent one. I don't even have any major obligations hanging over my head. There are people out there who would pay handsomely to be in my shoes right now. I know they would. Of course, I wouldn't trade places with them. But to be free in the morning—to handle those early hours exactly how I see fit, to experience what I call a peaceful morning, just the way I want it—that’s like a dream to some. Or something else entirely. To stay in bed just a little longer, but for exactly as long as I choose—whether that’s ten minutes or half an hour, it doesn't matter—knowing I don't have to be anywhere, that I don't have to rush, that I can put on whatever music I feel like hearing and think about whatever is on my mind. To take care of things in the bathroom whenever the urge strikes, to eat something afterward—nothing heavy, just something I actually want and that suffices, something simple like toast and butter—and to drink my coffee and smoke a few cigarettes without anyone nagging me or waiting for me somewhere. I want to watch the snow fall while I sip coffee that I made exactly to my taste. Since I usually only have that one cup in the morning, maybe once in the afternoon, I want to make it myself and have nobody interfering. I want to smoke a couple of cigarettes with it, too, but not inside; somewhere open yet sheltered, like a porch, where it's just a little chilly, not too much, so I can watch the snow. That’s how I want another day to begin sliding into view, emerging from nothing. After that, let the day wander, let it twist, let it be calm or chaotic; it doesn't matter. Once you've had a morning like that..." (Ta-Nehisi Coates, "The Daily Winter")

I really dig this. I’ve been wanting to pick this up ever since I heard them reading snippets from it on NPR, maybe a year or two back.

He’s currently navigating his "second winter" while battling the fallout from alcoholism. I can't quite recall the specific medical term for his condition, but it was severe enough that he lost the ability to walk entirely.
His book "Comcast" is also worth a read, though it lacks some of the heavy drama found elsewhere. 🙂

On a related note, I spent part of my morning listening to a radio program about Rimbaud. It touched on very similar themes.
Rimbaud was someone who constantly reinvented himself and crossed borders; he wandered, left, traveled... he didn't even let an amputation stop him. He just got a prosthetic leg so he could get back up and keep moving.

It just goes to show that poets have always been, and likely will always be, the only true adventurers out there.
🙂

Anyone who’s actually slogged through the philosophy of history knows that Hegel didn't exactly throw roses at India or its culture at first glance, right? But then you look at the authors behind the book "Hegelian India," and get this—he still dropped about 80,000 words on India, which is a hell of a lot for a place he kept calling dreamy, absurd, and just plain nonsensical. The two guys who wrote that book are Indian, and according to them, India was basically Hegel's greatest headache because he couldn't stop seeing his own reflections staring back at him from Indian thought.

"Even Hegel himself points out how much Indian philosophy mirrors his own stuff, like that whole concept of the absolute (brahman). Still, he made sure to draw a line in the sand regarding two main differences between his ideas and theirs: first, there was his obsession with freedom, which is how he distanced himself from the caste system in Indian society while simultaneously trying to find traces or echoes of that same system woven through the entire fabric of Indian history, politics, art, religion, and philosophy. Second, he insisted on the necessity of dialectical, progressive development, which was his way of pushing back against what he saw as the supposed stagnation and lifelessness of Indian philosophy... But did Hegel ever truly manage to shake off this intellectual twin that keeps haunting his work?"