UnbornTao

Start creating something small now: a post, a journal entry, an insight or observation, a questioning, a plan, a sketch, a poem, a dish, a workout, a meditation, a book, a relationship, a hobby, a curiosity for something, a disposition, a mood, a purpose, a goal. What is creativity? What does it mean to create something? What's the role of nothing in that?

What if "bad" and "good" exist exclusively because of, and for, yourself?

@Aaron p Clean up your posts a bit (formatting, uppercase use, weird signs) and do not spam the forum with links, thank you.

It’s really about being honest with oneself. When we understand that we don’t directly apprehend the nature of anything, that’s a solid observation -- and no "answer" will change that condition. What does change it is becoming personally conscious, beyond experience and perception, of self, existence, space, and so on. What is true must be tackled on its own terms. Since we’re discussing absolute matters, this, once again, cannot be achieved through relative means. There’s no possible thought, notion, or system, however complex and elaborate, that could convey the true nature of existence -- whatever that may be. At best, it could provide direction, and open doors. You seem to be seeking validation or social consensus but that approach won’t work. Again, you can operate on principles and on accurate axioms. Regarding meaning, it is a complementary process to the existence of something. Get the nature of something first. Hey, you could start with what meaning is, and how it itself is meaningless. Consider that the "answer" already exists; you just need to apprehend it. Individuals throughout history have presumably already done this, so it is possible.

Heresy! Burn him!

According to GPT, it was David Hume’s skepticism about causality. Something like: How can we justify our belief in necessary causal connections when all we ever perceive are discrete events?

@Someone here Answers are irrelevant. Again, looking for a piece of information to believe in is not the same as experiencing what's true first-hand. As a matter of fact, answers disrupt this process. It is useful to recognize that no notion can be true in itself -- since we're talking about ultimate matters here. The true nature of anything must be tackled on its own terms, which is to say, what's ultimately true can't be gleaned through relative means. What's comfortable and what's true are different goals. I know the mind struggles for certainty and it would rather have anything, even if untrue or dysfunctional, rather than have no place to stand. But one can learn to abide in this state without having to fill in the blanks. Your disposition could be summarize along these lines: "World, tell me what to believe in. I don't care what it is, just provide me with a set of answers so that I can get myself off the hook."

1) To the first one, yes, it is not necessary. Where does the notion of needing "existential comfort" come from? You can create grounded axioms for yourself based on accurate perceptions, and follow principles. You can even operate on empowering beliefs as long as you recognize them for what they are. 2) People as a whole tend to seek simplistic, comforting answers to explain reality, life, and their own existence while going about the business of living. This lends itself to fantasizing and does not require much effort at all. Religion plays a huge role in that, as does science, though to a lesser extent. Religion, being faith-based, discourages questioning which is a necessary requisite for making any kind of discovery. Even though certain wise individuals throughout human history might have shared profound insights under the umbrella of "religion", these must transcend any system or dogma and be personally and profoundly experienced as the case. Yet, rather than undertaking this work, people quickly turn these things into shared conjecture, diluting, misrepresenting, and so undermining the spirit of inquiry itself. The point is truly listening for an experience or consciousness, not in believing a set of propositions. These are totally different.

Achieving enlightenment, one whiskey at a time. No, and just in case, do not go down problematic roads.

Guys, focus: postmodernism.

It might not be a coincidence that philosophers, monks, and similar tend to be solitary types, even if they do end up socializing -- sometimes quite a lot. When all is said and done, insights need to be generated by you, in your experience. The social domain, I'd argue, is exclusively survival-oriented, with "truth" and "wisdom" being incredibly low priorities -- if they are considered at all. This isn't to say that an individual can be entirely detached from the social realm, regardless of her or his environment. Even solitude is a function of "social." Also, solitude is often sought as a way to cut out the distractions of one's culture. As an example, when one of Kant's students posed a question he couldn't answer, he chose to isolate himself for seven years to contemplate the matter. Why isolating oneself? I'd add that everyone feels alone, even when surrounded with people and distracted, but this may be beside the point.

It's either Ancient Greece, or nothing.

Keep to the main thread guys.