Quote:Theologian Dr. Asher Walden argues that the self can be accounted for purely as a momentary aggregate of mental factors, without any need to appeal to some additional thing that stands outside the mind-stream. Although we normally think of experience as some kind of relation between two independent real things—a subject and an object—he argues that, in truth, there is just experience; experience is the real thing...

Quote:...In order to get behind this illusion of isolated consciousness, I would like to discuss an alternate form of analysis based on the Buddhist text tradition called Abhidharma. Now, anyone interested in the philosophy of idealism should be at least familiar with the availability of resources in Buddhist philosophy. Buddhists were, so to speak, first on the scene with respect to the relevant insights. And they have developed over the course of millennia some powerful tools and strategies around the analysis of mind, language, truth, and metaphysics. In the last generation, there has been a powerful resurgence of interest in these approaches among Western-trained analytic philosophers. Here, I want to focus on just one: the idea that the whole world can be described in terms of individual ‘units’ of consciousness, called dharmas...

Quote:...Much of the time, communication and cooperation are so smooth and seamless that we take it for granted that we share a common ground, common experience. But when things break down, in families and in politics, the walls go up, and the community splinters. Then we wonder: how could those others possibly know how we feel? How could they possibly be so misguided? Do they even live in the same world as us? And sometimes, the problem is not with them, but with me: why is it so hard to reach out? Why don’t I feel included? Am I really as alone as I seem to be? When philosophers ask about how we gain knowledge of the world, they are implicitly asking about something we do together. They are asking how we all end up with the same knowledge, about the same world. How is such knowledge possible? How do I know that what I experience is not a kind of hallucination?

The philosophy of idealism addresses these questions by defending, in the most consistent and tenacious way, the reality of common experience. Rather than individual beings, with more or less similar experiences, the world is constituted by common experience, structured in the shape of more or less overlapping and interdependent selves.

(07-26-2021, 03:55 PM)Patrick Wrote: https://www.essentiafoundation.org/reading/there-is-no-self-the-periodic-table-of-experience/

Quote:Theologian Dr. Asher Walden argues that the self can be accounted for purely as a momentary aggregate of mental factors, without any need to appeal to some additional thing that stands outside the mind-stream. Although we normally think of experience as some kind of relation between two independent real things—a subject and an object—he argues that, in truth, there is just experience; experience is the real thing...

Quote:...In order to get behind this illusion of isolated consciousness, I would like to discuss an alternate form of analysis based on the Buddhist text tradition called Abhidharma. Now, anyone interested in the philosophy of idealism should be at least familiar with the availability of resources in Buddhist philosophy. Buddhists were, so to speak, first on the scene with respect to the relevant insights. And they have developed over the course of millennia some powerful tools and strategies around the analysis of mind, language, truth, and metaphysics. In the last generation, there has been a powerful resurgence of interest in these approaches among Western-trained analytic philosophers. Here, I want to focus on just one: the idea that the whole world can be described in terms of individual ‘units’ of consciousness, called dharmas...

Quote:...Much of the time, communication and cooperation are so smooth and seamless that we take it for granted that we share a common ground, common experience. But when things break down, in families and in politics, the walls go up, and the community splinters. Then we wonder: how could those others possibly know how we feel? How could they possibly be so misguided? Do they even live in the same world as us? And sometimes, the problem is not with them, but with me: why is it so hard to reach out? Why don’t I feel included? Am I really as alone as I seem to be? When philosophers ask about how we gain knowledge of the world, they are implicitly asking about something we do together. They are asking how we all end up with the same knowledge, about the same world. How is such knowledge possible? How do I know that what I experience is not a kind of hallucination?

The philosophy of idealism addresses these questions by defending, in the most consistent and tenacious way, the reality of common experience. Rather than individual beings, with more or less similar experiences, the world is constituted by common experience, structured in the shape of more or less overlapping and interdependent selves.

An interesting read and an interesting point of view.

(07-27-2021, 09:49 AM)tadeus Wrote: Close the forum, there are only soliloquises.  

(07-28-2021, 05:35 PM)Ming the Merciful Wrote: And so Sir, and what is wrong with Soliloquises, (I ask inquisitively)? Are they not the bridge between the God(s), (and men), who go henceforth, and show no fortitude for their actions. Is not Man, nothing more than a feeble insect compared to the God(s), and he should be pitied for his ignorance. The Soliloquy is a play on words, and is only mastered by only the few, and why reply with a pathetic sentence of only simple words, when a thousand words shows the embodiment of jest, performed by the Court Jester. Kingdoms have been saved and lost because no-one had time to read a soliloquy. Great battles were fought and many lives were lost. If they had the time, a moment of breath, and digesting the aforesaid soliloquy could have changed history. And what of Shakespeare? And what of Shakespeare, you may well ask, (inquisitively)? Was not Shakespeare a genius at writing soliloquies and there are few men that can equal his example. The Soliloquy should be honored, and such writers of the aforementioned Soliloquy should not be dishonored for his artistic fortitude. There should be appeasement for such unruly words, saying that the Forum should be closed because of too many Soliloquises. How you jest?

(07-29-2021, 09:18 AM)tadeus Wrote:

(07-28-2021, 05:35 PM)Ming the Merciful Wrote: And so Sir, and what is wrong with Soliloquises, (I ask inquisitively)? Are they not the bridge between the God(s), (and men), who go henceforth, and show no fortitude for their actions. Is not Man, nothing more than a feeble insect compared to the God(s), and he should be pitied for his ignorance. The Soliloquy is a play on words, and is only mastered by only the few, and why reply with a pathetic sentence of only simple words, when a thousand words shows the embodiment of jest, performed by the Court Jester. Kingdoms have been saved and lost because no-one had time to read a soliloquy. Great battles were fought and many lives were lost. If they had the time, a moment of breath, and digesting the aforesaid soliloquy could have changed history. And what of Shakespeare? And what of Shakespeare, you may well ask, (inquisitively)? Was not Shakespeare a genius at writing soliloquies and there are few men that can equal his example. The Soliloquy should be honored, and such writers of the aforementioned Soliloquy should not be dishonored for his artistic fortitude. There should be appeasement for such unruly words, saying that the Forum should be closed because of too many Soliloquises. How you jest?

Nothing is wrong with Soliloquises. I like your thought's.

But this forum gives the impression that different beings are discussing here.
So this was just a comedic comment on the discussion in this thread.