Salutations M(asterful) T(oastmaster)
MT: G'day, N(ear)S(ighted)... a good day to expand your visions!
NS: Does expanded vision contract one’s horizons, as do binoculars?
I’m glad your reduced recipe succeeded, as it should since 2 cps WW flour was its original incarnation before my gluttony began to slowly nudge it upwards. I agree that the horror of white flour is to be absolutely avoided. I can’t even imagine my eating white bread it has been so long since the Marine Corps forced me to swallow it along with the rest of its crap.
I hoped my allusion to the band, ‘The Grateful Dead,’ would send a fellow head, from my generation, head tripping back into psychedelic time’s past. I spent a long and magic night dancing in The Boston Gardens to one of their marathon concerts; or so I’m told.
MT: I do find some of my time to be so precious I will reach out and pinch it's cheeks and watch the face of time smile back at me. If that little pinch slows down the advancement of time by mere seconds, I'm grateful.
NS: Nice imagery! Like Siddhartha, I, unlike NS, sit beside the river of time in preference to being carried in it. Who, or what, one takes themselves to be can make for major perspectival changes.
”Whatever is concerned with time is mortal.” (Eckhart)
You appear to take yourself as primarily a human creature, with a something spiritual hidden within you. I OTOH, take myself to be pure spirit, whilst unreal dreams play across a mind’s screen.
MT: Philosophical skepticism is fine for mind gaming but when one deals with reality face-to-face, it is that confrontation which furthers the comprehension that there is indeed a pattern in life that is closely adhered to by life itself... too grand and too mysterious to by fully understood by intellect alone, one must transcend mind and embrace the All-ness in full surrender... absolute trust in the journey, not planned by yourself, but akin to dropping into the waters of life allowing the current to take you where it will.
NS: Yes, life obviously has “patterns,” but as you say, it remains “too mysterious to be fully understood by the intellect.” This (I.e. mental comprehension) I took for your intended inquiry regarding making “sense” of life.
I take your comments to implicate, what is called in philosophy (sans aspersions), ‘naïve materialism,’ or at best an ‘empiricism.’ I’m much more of the ‘idealist’ school. Most of your better empiricists freely admit that direct knowledge is limited to ‘sensa’ which, while indicating an external world, in no way verifies its actuality. Kant will tell you that ‘the world’ may not in fact exist at all. Mind, body, world, (like the gods) are ultimately based on faith, not experience. Since no one has ever intuited a world outside of their mind’s conception of one.
”It is clear that no proofs drawn from the empirical consideration of the world can be conceived which could assure us with absolute certainty of the world’s existence.” (Edmund Husserl, father of modern Phenomenology)
I harbor no prejudice against ‘people of faith,’ for they are the common run of humanity. It is certainly understandable that people should desire certitude in their ephemeral lives. I certainly value it. But, I don’t, won’t, and can’t, do ‘faith’ in order to fake Truth. So, I hold to the one direct experience that is impossible to doubt (i.e. ‘I Am’), and doubt all else. So, you see, I have my small portion of certitude, but without the shaky crutch of faith. True, it is not much in appearance to hold on to, this little, ‘I Am,’ but I am a man easily contented.
”Knowing and recognizing myself, I have merged in the Truest of the True.” (Guru Nanak Dev, founder of Sikhism)
MT: I'm quite sure. You can make sense of life just as you can make bread of life... knowing the recipe to create that which you need. This may require dropping the intellectual approach which often becomes extraordinarily boring and uninteresting.
NS: Yes, I quite agree with you, there comes a point where the intellectual approach proves itself inadequate to this metaphysical task. Your next step apparently is to “create that which you need.” Fine for you, if it works for you. But, if I did that, whatever “truths” I then held I would know full well to have been ‘made up.’ Not a very satisfying bread, that. At least, not for this entity. I took another course entirely in my search for ‘T’ruth. Like Descartes, I threw it all away. Unlike Descartes, I chose to hold Only to what cannot be thrown away, i.e. what is “True.”
”What a happy adobe is nothingness!” (Ansari, Sufi guy)
MT: What say thee to the world you envision beyond your mind? Is somehow that revelation more real than mind's reality?
NS: All “envisioning” is done in the mind. All worlds are mind’s creations, dreams, and illusions.
”Mind precedes things, dominates them, creates them.” (‘The Dhamapada’ Buddhist scripture)
”Are you in the world, or is the world within you?”
“You don’t live in ‘the world,’ you live in the Self.” (Ramana, Hindu Advaitist)
MT: We have differing definitions regarding this word, 'real'.
NS: Yes, I suppose we do. I always favored Shankara’s definition:
”That which neither comes nor goes, never changes, and depends upon nothing else in order to exist.” And, I would add to that, ‘that which is impossible to successfully doubt, or be rid of.’ All else besides is ‘unreal,’ and I refuse to take it seriously (including ‘NS’).
”The false self is a monumental illusion.” (Thomas Keating, modern Christian mystic)
MT: Reality is when I burn my finger on a hot pot handle and the pain delivers the message to my brain to react, while I scream out "ouch!" That is real... that is fact.
”In all perception, thou perceives in the first place only thyself and thine own condition.” (Johann Fichte, philosopher)
NS: I’ve had many dreams wherein I felt pain, and had a brain that reacted and screamed “ouch!” with a human mouth. Was that person “real” after all, simply because he did those imagined actions? Even modern physics makes particle mush of the world you take so naively at human face value. Metaphysical inquiry takes a bit more effort than taking the apparent for the actual, my philosophic phrend.
MT: Once we know god we know our Self.
Ns: I would say that you have it backwards.
’Muhammad said: “Who knows his true Self, knows his Lord.”’ (Islamic Hadith)
”Selfhood, as such, is Spirit.” (Schelling, philosopher)
MT: "negative emotions should always be rooted out as quickly as possible... blah, blah, blah..." What kind of living is this? Denial of your emotions, the very emotions that make us hu'man is supposed to be more preferred than Being what you are?
NS: You should note that I recommended rooting out ‘Negative’ emotions as one might root out unwanted ‘weeds’ from a garden, not all emotion. (If this is a good practice for a patch of dirt, how much more so for our living psyche?) It is nothing more than rational Epicureanism (i.e. intelligent hedonism). We, as mortals, have a finite life within this dream world wherein a being is only living happily if he acts to avoid suffering and to enhance pleasure; I trust you agree. Since we have only a finite set of life moments, the net sum total of which comprises our happy/miserable life, we should take care to guard each instant from pain, and to maximize its pleasure. I do this continually, and never suffer mental pain because of it. I’ll teach you the technique if you’re ever interested.
I enjoyed your poem, and snatched it since once again it appeared to communicate a higher wisdom than the one your prose ostensibly espouses. Not to say that I did not enjoy your critique, and the elaboration of your own philosophy, not at all. You are welcome to personally reject philosophic & religious “mysticism,” but believe me and the various above quoted sources, like it or not, THAT is what mysticism is. We all have what personally suits and resonates with us, and what does not. It’s good to hear what others find suitable, and how they view what is, to them, unsuitable. I thank you for your well spoken honesty, and intelligent assessment my good friend.
NS (Not Suitable)