07 Feb 11
Originally posted by vishvahetuYes, and getting to this "real self" requires one to understand their orientation into this material life first.
May I add.....
The real you, is a pin prick of spiritual energy called the soul, and in Bhagavad Gita it is said quote:.........."The individual soul is unbreakable and insoluble, and can be neither burned nor dried. He is everlasting, immutable, invisible, inconceivable, unchangeable, immovable and eternally the same"
As you can see by the authorit ...[text shortened]... e....and is never in flux.
What is is changing all the time, is ones false ego or identity.
So thats why I use a small "T" in "thyself" .
07 Feb 11
3 edits
Originally posted by whodeyWell, thats Oprah.
All this talk about knowing yourself reminds me of a time when I watched Oprah talk about religion. She said something to the effect that religion for her was a way to find out about yourself and be better in tune with yourself. She then looked in the camer, with a straight face I might add, and said that as for her, it has made her more full of herself than she has ever been.
Hilarious!! đ
I thought she was just another TV host biatch until one day , as I watched the oppenning of her show, I was "beamed " into the head/conciousness of her cameraman. I could hear all the floormen and crowd around me. The smells,etc.
Real trippy. The subject of the show that day : God !
08 Feb 11
Originally posted by rwingettI didn't know that. Well, personality-wise, he's more of a trick pony rider than chevalier on a destrier. A much more engaging personality than the other three as well as, in my opinion, a fairly groundbreaking thinker.
Golly, and here I thought I was the first one to come up with that. đ
I know Dennett was one of the 'Four Horsemen', along with Dawkins, Harris and Hitchens. I'll have to take a look at one of his books someday.
08 Feb 11
Originally posted by Bosse de NageYes, Dennett was rubbing elbows with the likes of Dawkins and Hitchens. You ought to watch the 'Four Horsemen' video on youtube sometime. It's quite entertaining. Or at least I thought so. I know you have an aversion to Dawkins, though, which I find to be inexplicable. He always strikes me as being rather polite and affable. I can see why one might not care for Hitchens. Despite his wit, he can be pretty abrasive (plus he's politically conservative). You must be reacting largely to the public perception of Dawkins as being the l'enfant terrible of the new atheists.
I didn't know that. Well, personality-wise, he's more of a trick pony rider than chevalier on a destrier. A much more engaging personality than the other three as well as, in my opinion, a fairly groundbreaking thinker.
10 Feb 11
1 edit
Originally posted by rwingettI have an aversion to Dawkins' writing on religion, because it's puerile, but not his other stuff, which was 'a model of scientific exposition for non scientists' although I struggled to maintain interest. I just find Dennett a lot more interesting. 'Darwin's Dangerous Idea', for example, is much more fun to read than 'Climbing Mount Improbable'. Must be a question of temperament or style.
Yes, Dennett was rubbing elbows with the likes of Dawkins and Hitchens. You ought to watch the 'Four Horsemen' video on youtube sometime. It's quite entertaining. Or at least I thought so. I know you have an aversion to Dawkins, though, which I find to be inexplicable. He always strikes me as being rather polite and affable. I can see why one might not care ely to the public perception of Dawkins as being the l'enfant terrible of the new atheists.
Hitchens is an amusing drunk and occasionally excellent writer, although cutting a tragic figure lately. Sam Harris seems to be more relevant to Americans.
I disagree that religion is a 'failed science' -- rather, it represents the (not entirely successful) domestication of psychopathology.
10 Feb 11
Originally posted by Bosse de NageWhat Dennet would you recommend? I am not familiar with this author. Sounds intriguing
I have an aversion to Dawkins' writing on religion, because it's puerile, but not his other stuff, which was 'a model of scientific exposition for non scientists' although I struggled to maintain interest. I just find Dennett a lot more interesting. 'Darwin's Dangerous Idea', for example, is much more fun to read than 'Climbing Mount Improbable'. Must ...[text shortened]... rather, it represents the (not entirely successful) domestication of psychopathology.
10 Feb 11
1 edit
Originally posted by karoly aczelMosey on over to 4shared.com for sample copies of recommended titles such as Consciousness Explained, Kinds of Mind [start here perhaps], Brainstorms (with Douglas Hofstadter), and others.
What Dennet would you recommend? I am not familiar with this author. Sounds intriguing
He doesn't talk about the domestication of psychopathology, though. That's JG Ballard.
10 Feb 11
Originally posted by Bosse de NageI don't see what would be considered 'puerile' about his writing on religion, except for the fact that it's intended for a mainstream audience. Could you expand on that a bit?
I have an aversion to Dawkins' writing on religion, because it's puerile, but not his other stuff, which was 'a model of scientific exposition for non scientists' although I struggled to maintain interest. I just find Dennett a lot more interesting. 'Darwin's Dangerous Idea', for example, is much more fun to read than 'Climbing Mount Improbable'. Must ...[text shortened]... rather, it represents the (not entirely successful) domestication of psychopathology.
10 Feb 11
Originally posted by rwingettRanting and raving about the bogeyman's a bit puerile, I find. Then there was that stunt with the Pope.
I don't see what would be considered 'puerile' about his writing on religion, except for the fact that it's intended for a mainstream audience. Could you expand on that a bit?
I think Dawkins entirely misses the point about why religion is so dangerous. Admittedly, it requires greater imaginative resources than he seems to possess.
10 Feb 11
Originally posted by Bosse de NageYou put it down to a creative and or intellectual inadequacy on Darwin's part rather than you simply not seeing eye to eye with him on his decisions about how to pitch his schtick in an entertainment media arena the limitations and shortcomings of which you, me and him could no presunably see eye to eye on?
I think Dawkins entirely misses the point about why religion is so dangerous. Admittedly, it requires greater imaginative resources than he seems to possess.
10 Feb 11
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFI wouldn't put it like that, no. I would say that he's clearly endowed with rich intellectual and imaginative resources but lacks the resources specific to understanding 'religious thinking'.
You put it down to a creative and or intellectual inadequacy on Darwin's part rather than you simply not seeing eye to eye with him on his decisions about how to pitch his schtick in an entertainment media arena the limitations and shortcomings of which you, me and him could no presunably see eye to eye on?
I imagine Dawkins would be hard pressed to interpret Blake, for example.
10 Feb 11
Originally posted by rwingettPreviously you said that the doppelganger obscured the 'real' you and now you deny the existence of a 'real you'.
I am saying that there either is no fixed entity that is the 'real you', or if so, that it is probably unknowable. As such, I claim to have no knowledge of the 'real anyone'.
Or is the argument that the 'real you' is a dynamic concept? That wouldn't make it unknowable, though.
10 Feb 11
Originally posted by PalynkaDennett describes the notion of a 'real you' as the Cartesian theatre -- the notion that somewhere in the brain there is a centralised agent (res cogitans) that has thoughts. But there isn't, apparently.
Previously you said that the doppelganger obscured the 'real' you and now you deny the existence of a 'real you'.
Or is the argument that the 'real you' is a dynamic concept? That wouldn't make it unknowable, though.