Lakefingers said:

How does a philosopher avoid this epistemological nihilism or absolute skepticism? How does one follow such a philosophical tradition and avoid trapping consciousness in the feedback of impressions?

---

Lakefingers said:

Your real skepticism is a bit more about personal experience than interpersonal knowledge (like in the OP). Anyhow, you're only begging the question: how do you know you've not already rejected the "Tao"? How do you know the "Tao" when you encounter it if all you encounter is filtered through illusions of mind? How do you know this is the real search? (What do you ground that on?)

---

Lakefingers said:

'So reject everything your mind' then your mind is open and free to see things. What is there to see if the mind has rejected everything?

But then you continue, you reject it's name and form and keep it's tao. So what you see is the Tao (being...?)

Chronic777 said:

To reject something is not to run from it, but to recognize its true nature, you reject the name & form & see the Tao
You reject everything until you find that which can not be rejected
What can be rejected is temporary & has no purity
Only what can't be rejected is worth paying attention to

---

Yet when you've rejected everything you've done just that - rejected everything. Thus there is nothing left to not reject. Or do you mean 'reject all things you encounter until you find what can't be rejected', which (regardless of what you mean with it) is just another metaphysical justification for dogmatism and fundamentalism. When you find that thing that can't be rejected is that due to lack of attention? A bad attitude? Lack of intelligence? (Perhaps someone of a higher IQ could reject it! )

Your real skepticism is a bit more about personal experience than interpersonal knowledge (like in the OP). Anyhow, you're only begging the question: how do you know you've not already rejected the "Tao"? How do you know the "Tao" when you encounter it if all you encounter is filtered through illusions of mind? How do you know this is the real search? (What do you ground that on?)

---

Finding what can't be rejected is finding that which has gone unoticed due to distractions, Self. We are so caught up in our minds/objects that we never question Self. So this rejection is to lose all objects for one instant & put attention on Self. All illusion & filters happen to Self, so focus 100% on Self to transcend all filters

Tao is Self, this firm centerdness is the highest meditation

Meditation to Self, On Self, As Self

Then you can play in the world at full power as you've found the source of the world, so now you play with no attachment, your life has consciously become part of the cosmic dance

the Self is in no object, no book, no mantra, no words & no thoughts, so you reject all of these & stay only as Self

Lakefingers said:

"Like art" - do you mean that they are metaphysical postulates? Not logical deductions?

Yes, there is an entanglement: on the one hand our thinking must proceed from others' thoughts,  on the other hand many philosophers have responded in a way as to entangle themselves and philosophy more deeply in arbitrary postulates. At the same time, the thought of the past becomes so deeply entrenched in the culture, a disentanglement (e.g. Kant on Kant's grounds) becomes necessary (depending on target audience).

---

Quote:

The question, as I wrote above, is not only "where we're going with it" but also where we're coming with it and where we are with it.

---

Quote:

IMO in the mid-20th Century all too many children were indoctrinated with a utilitarian (Nutz) program waiting to be executed as well as execute any faith in spiritual/intellectual endeavor. Indeed, one can ask, why do we care about this shit when people are still blowing each other up all over the world? Should we not do as Carnegie, Rockefeller, Bill Gates and just become philanthropists and do do do?

We need the discourse, perhaps more now when do do do becomes the main operation of the Zeitgeist. For "the most linguistically elegant summary of thought and existence" is necessary for a certain audience, just as something base and moronic can be necessary for another audience (the why and who who care). As such we should not forget the "who". I for instance might not be convinced by Stephen Hawking, Captain Crunch or Madonna saying "life is hell", but perhaps Hannah Arendt would do it quite well ("peeling" at the "layers" that satisfy me).

It is not the amount of discourse and their effect that is of value (besides, are you certain that the little effect we might assume there is would be possible without the massive discourse?). Discourses do in actuality become some of the dominant forces over our lives over several generations.... Even if it is political, cultural, artistic and epistemic "frustration" that is passed on to future generations.

---

Lakefingers said:

Several times I've read some of you say that extreme skepticism is the rule of the day in this forum. So:

Extreme skepticism: Doubt that anything exists (God, the external world, other minds [zombie arguments], even I/ego, etc). Since the person that thinks this doubts the existence of everything, they also believe in  nothing. This type of skepticism has been called nihilism (e.g. Hume who said in Treatise of Human Nature that there is no reason to believe in anything except one's shifting impressions). Kant saw this skepticism/nihilism as a challenge and answered it by constructing transcendental idealism.

However, the basis of Kant's transcendental idealism (subject-object distinction) leads to solipsism, a trap set to reduce all investigation to the individual's consciousness. In other words, Kant's really saying "I know of objects only what I create a priori or what I make by law." Following this, since a priori activity is established as the basic premise of all knowledge, I can only know my own creations, not reality in itself, beyond my knowing.

Kant might reply that sometimes one's impressions or what appears in one's mind is the reality in itself. However Kant had no logical basis for even supposing there is reality in itself, because he said metaphysical claims (such as this) are faulty and we can only know what is in our experience. As such how is it possible for reality to exist in itself?

Answer: It is not. Kant, like Hume, was really stating that impressions are representations of nothing (nothing that has to do with reality).

How does a philosopher avoid this epistemological nihilism or absolute skepticism? How does one follow such a philosophical tradition and avoid trapping consciousness in the feedback of impressions?

---

Lakefingers said:

Chronic777 said:

Finding what can't be rejected is finding that which has gone unoticed due to distractions, Self. We are so caught up in our minds/objects that we never question Self. So this rejection is to lose all objects for one instant & put attention on Self. All illusion & filters happen to Self, so focus 100% on Self to transcend all filters

---

Isn't that simply called insight or opening your mind? isn't this thing you notice still perceived through mind and self? How much of the self can you focus on at one moment?

Chronic777 said:

Tao is Self, this firm centerdness is the highest meditation

---

Tracing this over the Kantian model, are you suggesting with this interpretation of the Tao, that we only have access to our minds? -- and when it is at best it is aware of itself?

Assuming focusing the Tao/self leads to seeing beyond illusions, yet only leads directly back to the self, how are you certain that illusioned state is just not a higher level illusion of self?

Chronic777 said:

Then you can play in the world at full power as you've found the source of the world, so now you play with no attachment, your life has consciously become part of the cosmic dance

the Self is in no object, no book, no mantra, no words & no thoughts, so you reject all of these & stay only as Self

---

The world's the same as one's perceptions (self), which is essentially the same thing Kant and Hume said, and leads one back into this epistemological problem.

---

No problem at all

When you see what Self is, its not like an objective seeing where you see an object, you see the infinity of Self, that the Self is in every object, that infact there are no 'objects', only Self.

Theres no further to go on from after seeing infinity
Theres no 'how do i incorporate this in the world?' thats just mind trying to find a fixed position, but what fixed position does the infinite have?
When you see the Self as infinite, then everything has the taste of the infinte.
But this flavour is tasteless! No tongue can taste it, no nose can smell it, no finger can touch it, no ear can hear it & no eye can see it. You Are It, unsplittable.

Like you say, the way you perceive your Self is the way you perceive the world.

Ive enjoyed this discussion alot

zen buddy said:

I do not understand how someone could find comfort in believing that they are unable to understand anything. Furthermore, how can someone who believes that we are unable to understand anything possibly believe that their argument is relevant enough to warrant opening their mouth in the first place? As soon as they voice their beliefs they are being hypocritical. As soon as they argue their point they have shown everyone that they do not agree with what they are saying.

---