What can I say easyrider. Perhaps I'm biased because I've been taught in the school of analytical philosophy. I do think that philosophy has to be more as it is a true meta discipline. I guess what i wanted to say is, that Philosophy definatly is more than just some random musings about "spirit", it involves a strong discipline of thought.

Now, now obliguhl... that's a rather bold speculation, friend. Is it not the height of arrogance to dismiss philosophies which do not cull 100% of their contemplative insight through reason alone? By "reason alone", I strongly imply that rationale is but half of the human equation. A seamless balance of pragmatism and intuition is optimum for each of us. You, me.. all of us!

I also apply this line of thought to our more esoteric/devotional/inspired family members. For no dichotomous state of mind is perfect, as when we rely exclusively on but 50% of the whole or our encoded potentiality, our views and preferred vantage points are exercising but a fraction of what is truly possible to perceive. I've been trying to learn to see the other side of the proverbial coin, lo these many years. That's one of the greatest challenges of humankind and an emphatic call to awaken from our dream of mortal conceptual fixation.

While for some, a narrow interpretation of the philosophical process is both, honed by logical deduction and frankly, most intolerant of other angles of thought. Talk about a wall of rigid, dogmatic projections (and some of our esteemed fellows are worried about the spiritual folks inserting "dogma" into these discussions)...

A good read is Aldous Huxley's book: The Perennial Philosophy: An Interpretation of the Great Mystics, East and West. I personally feel it is a fairly profound and poignant cross-reference of philosophical thought, throughout the world we inhabit, across the span of the ages. Obviously, there is much more to philosophy than ONLY rational, linear thought, there are the instinctual and transcendental, as well.

Would it not be wise to assimilate BOTH the potentiality of the left and right hemispheric functions of our cognition? Any extreme stance in the polarity of human consciousness is inherently flawed by it's blind dependence on just half of our perceptual potential. This goes for the pragmatic logicians and the mystically inclined. IMO, we need to unite our mind into a cohesive whole, one in which we are aware of both aspects of our perceptual paradigm... and seize the ecstatic opportunity to transcend our self-created boundaries in awareness and essentially... touch the eternal.

And to put a spin on what is arguably, "the crux of the biscuit" (the quintessential philosophy of Frank Zappa), by taking a closer look at the broader spectrum of what is "philosophical" and ultimately, a posture of inquiry and assessment... are we not most fully functioning, when we activate the whole of our intelligence? :idea:

Which includes a functioning synthesis of reason and intuition. It's plain to see, if one considers the full scope of what philosophy encompasses, that many of the worlds most brilliant philosophers spent a lifetime contemplating the nature of The Divine. To say that Socrates, Lao Tzu, Siddhartha Gautama, Patanjali, Krishnamurti, William James and Alan Watts were NOT exemplary philosophers, is most presumptuous indeed. I think I need to pinch myself, just in case I'm dreaming.

Just kidding, buddy, we're good. Just don't expect us to fall down and submit to your empirical decrees. We all need to take a chill pill, as we're all on the same team, given the rest of our species propensity for cruelty, manipulation and destruction. Let's pull together and agree that we all have a lot to learn from each other, eh?

Yes, I do agree. Rational thought isn't everything. I was merely stating, that philosphy today is something different. The discipline has evolved over time and it is very true, that it encompassed a lot more, especially before other disciplines evolved and steered away from philosophy.

If this discussion was on a philosophical level, there would not be need for me to justify myself (no offense), because I never said that i was against pondering the world in a more intuitive way. But that's not philosophy, at least not the philosophy being taught today. If this is good or bad is another question!

I apologize if i've seemed tense to you.

Just a thought: what if one side (rational thinking) cannot work in full force if it's constantly "held back" by the other (intuitive) side? If that were the case (and I were God), I'd implant the two qualities into two different people, and then let them together in the playfield, hoping that they would find a way to cooperate instead of killing each other.

But it has been proven that people function better in every way, if their hemnisphere´s are synchronised.
People feel happier, are more creative, have better memories, are better at solving logical problems, etc.

In many japanese busineses, including factories, workers do collective exercises each morning to synchronise their left and right brain, so they can be more productive and can cope better with stress.

It also goes the other way round: if you´re feeling good, your brainhemnisphere´s will synchronise almost automatically.

Is it really a good thing to have a "safe haven" against criticism?
Shouldn't all ideas, good or bad be up for review? Isn't that how people learn things???

If nobody tells me that what I'm doing is wrong I'll continue thinking that
what I'm doing is right.

It's like seeing a guy with a booger in his face without telling
him, just look the other way and keep on walking.

There is a small but important difference of criticism between spiritual people questioning each other and getting critical questions from science-minded people who do not have much in common with that spiritual path.

I can imagine that some people who are walking a spiritual path will like to have the input and the criticism of other people who are walking that same path. Science can at such times be counterproductive, many spiritual phenomena are very hard to answer scientifically. So for some it might be more important to walk the spiritual path itself and see where it leads them then to answer the scientific questions all along the way, distracting them from something they feel is more important.

It can still be that some people want scientific questions and answers with their spiritual topics. When that is the case, it is very easy for the original poster to state that scientific questions and criticism are welcome in said topic.

Of course when someone has a spiritual idea that is dangerous it will be stated regardless: Harm reduction is more important than the freedom to not be scientifically questioned.


Kind regards,

The Traveler

I always appreciate the effort put into the tone of the forum. Thanks for all of your work Travler & company.

BUMP...